Rituximab versus steroids and cyclophosphamide for the treatment of primary membranous nephropathy: protocol of a pilot randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Primary membranous nephropathy (MN) is a common cause of nephrotic syndrome in adults. The disease may have different long-term outcomes. After 10 years of follow-up, 35%-50% of the untreated patients with persistent nephrotic syndrome may die or progress to end stage renal disease. The 2012 KDIGO (Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes) guidelines recommend that initial therapy should consist of alternating steroids and an alkylating agent for 6 months. Recent observational studies showed that the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab may be effective in inducing remission. We designed a pilot multicentre randomised trial to inform the design of a larger trial testing the efficacy and safety of treatment with steroids and cyclophosphamide versus rituximab in patients with primary MN and heavy proteinuria (>3.5 g/24 hours). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This pilot, open-label, two-parallel-arm, randomised clinical trial will enrol 70 patients with primary MN and heavy proteinuria. Patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention arm (rituximab) or the active comparator arm (corticosteroid/alkylating-agent therapy). The study will provide estimates of the probability of complete remission of proteinuria and risk of serious side effects at 12 months to inform the design of a larger trial. We will also assess the recruitment potential of each participating centre to address study feasibility. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial received ethics approval from the local ethics boards. We will publish pilot data to inform the design of a larger clinical trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03018535; 2011-006115-59.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.054 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.011 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".