MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Predictors of relapse and efficacy of rituximab in immune thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura

2019· article· en· W2944066308 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood Advances · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicComplement system in diseases
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNational Cancer InstituteNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteMassachusetts General Hospital
KeywordsRituximabThrombotic thrombocytopenic purpuraMedicineImmune systemImmunologyThrombocytopenic purpuraPurpura (gastropod)Internal medicineAntibodyPlateletBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Patients with immune-mediated thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (iTTP) often experience life-threatening relapses of the disease, and rituximab (RTX) can be used to mitigate relapse risk. However, the predictors of relapse in iTTP and the magnitude and duration of effect of RTX remain key unanswered questions. Using a multi-institutional cohort of consecutive adult patients with iTTP, we used survival analysis to compare relapse rates between patients who received RTX during the index presentation with acute iTTP and those who did not. Of 124 patients, 60 (48%) received RTX and 34 (27%) experienced relapse. Median time to relapse was 3.71 (interquartile range, 1.75-4.9) and 1.33 (interquartile range, 0.43-2.35) years for RTX-treated and untreated patients, respectively. RTX conferred protection from relapse at 1 year of follow-up (P = .01) but not at 5 years of follow-up. Extended Cox regression was then used to identify predictors of relapse and to estimate the protective effect of RTX. The following parameters were independently associated with increased risk for subsequent relapse: presenting in iTTP relapse (hazard ratio [HR], 2.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-6.4), age younger than 25 years (HR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.2-7.2), and non-O blood group (HR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.06-4.39). RTX initially provided protection from relapse (HR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.70), but this effect gradually diminished, returning to the baseline risk for untreated patients at approximately 2.6 years. Patients who are young, have non-O blood group, or present with relapsed iTTP are at increased risk for subsequent relapse. RTX appears to confer short-term protection from relapse.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it