Comparison of standard of care treatment with a low steroid and mycophenolate mofetil regimen for lupus nephritis in the ALMS and AURA studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lupus nephritis is the most common organ-threatening manifestation of systemic lupus erythematosus. The current standard of care for patients is treatment with a combination of steroids plus either mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or cyclophosphamide. However, these medications are associated with considerable toxicity and suboptimal efficacy. This retrospective propensity analysis of data from 63 matched patients enrolled in two of the largest active lupus nephritis controlled trials, ALMS and AURA, suggests that the high dose regimen of MMF and steroids as described in the 2012 American College of Rheumatology lupus nephritis guidelines may not be necessary in all lupus nephritis patients. A lower dose regimen may result in better long-term safety, including a reduction in lymphoproliferative disorders, skin cancers and steroid related side effects, without compromising efficacy. An ongoing randomized controlled double-blind phase 3 study, AURORA (NCT03021499), is investigating renal response in 358 patients randomized to receive a low dose regimen containing voclosporin, MMF and steroid therapy as used in the AURA trial. It is anticipated that the AURORA study and its blinded two-year extension will provide important long-term outcome data.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".