MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

1ISG-003 Study of the use of intravenous immunoglobulins during the fourth quarter of 2018 and analysis of its off-label use

2020· article· en· W3016641207 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S Izquierdo Muñoz, A Pariente Junquera, A De Frutos Soto

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuarter (Canadian coin)AntibodyIntravenous ImmunoglobulinsImmunologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and importance The use of intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg) has increased as a result of their therapeutic usefulness in a great number of diseases. Despite this, IVIg label indications remain limited, so it is interesting to study their off-label use. Aim and objectives To describe the use of IVIg in our hospital for 3 months and to determine if they have been used for labelled indications. Material and methods This was a retrospective study (October–December 2018) and a descriptive analysis of the use of IVIg per patient and clinical indication. Information was collected from the hospital’s information systems and the computer records of the Farmatools software. Results Eighty-nine patients received IVIG during the study period, with an average age of 61 years at the end of the study (3 months–86.7 years); there were 40 (45%) men and 49 (55%) women. When IVIg were used as replacement therapy, the dosage used was 200–400 mg/kg every 3–5 weeks. In the remaining indications, the dose used per treatment cycle was 1–2 g/kg divided over 2–5 days. IVIG were used for labelled indications in 80% of patients (71/89) compared with 20% for off-label indications (18/89). Among the latter, the indications were: demyelinating neuropathies (6/18), myasthenia gravis (2/18), myopathies (2/18), encephalitis/encephalomyelitis (2/18), Morvan syndrome (1/18), syndrome paraneoplastic (1/18), refractory atopic dermatitis (1/18), paraneoplastic dermatomyositis (1/18), scleroderma (1/28) and antisynthetase syndrome (1/18). Conclusion and relevance The use of IVIG in unauthorised indications was frequent (20%), mainly in the field of neurology. This justifies the development of a protocol for the use of IVIG in this field for those indications with more scientific evidence and more common use: demyelinating neuropathies, myasthenia gravis and myopathies. References and/or acknowledgements No conflict of interest.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207