MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3019361312 · doi:10.1080/21678707.2020.1760837

Advances in therapeutic treatment options for ANCA-associated vasculitis

2020· article· en· W3019361312 on OpenAlexaff
Shealynn Carpenter, Jan Willem Cohen Tervaert, Elaine Yacyshyn

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Orphan Drugs · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVasculitis and related conditions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRituximabMaintenance therapyIntensive care medicineGuidelineANCA-Associated VasculitisVasculitisCyclophosphamideExpert opinionImmunologyInternal medicineDiseaseChemotherapyPathologyLymphoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) is a group of life-threatening autoimmune conditions that require a combination of treatments for induction and maintenance therapy. High-dose glucocorticoids and cyclophosphamide have traditionally been the mainstay of AAV treatment. During the last decade, rituximab has proven to be an effective alternative to cyclophosphamide. Currently, significant research in alternative therapeutic options for both induction and maintenance treatment is underway.Areas covered: Guideline review of remission, induction, and maintenance therapy of AAV. Examination of current research on alternative advanced therapeutics, specifically, the evidence for rituximab, C5a inhibitors, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.Expert opinion: Toxicities of existing therapies for AAV need to be limited, with alternative methods and agents for induction and maintenance. Importantly, the side-effects of high dose and long-term steroids have now been recognized. Newer induction agents and maintenance regimes will lead the future of AAV treatment.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Orphan DrugsSame topicVasculitis and related conditionsFrench-language works237,207