Bibliographic record
Abstract
endothelial damage, complement activation, and TA-TMA. 10 These findings may suggest that in some forms of GVHD, additional mechanisms of damage are triggered, which are only partially defused by "standard" immunosuppressive agents, possibly accounting for poor response to not only steroids but also other "conventional" second-line agents.This broad derangement of both adaptive and innate immunity (including inflammation) is embedded in GVHD and its pathophysiology and largely contributes (together with steroids and other anti-GVHD therapies) to complications associated with GVHD, such as life-threatening infections.This observation reconciles with the disappointing findings from previous trials showing that the effect on GVHD per se is necessary, but not sufficient, to improve the longterm outcome of patients with steroidrefractory GVHD.In summary, this phase 2 study identifies ruxolitinib as an effective agent for the treatment of steroid-refractory acute GVHD, which hopefully will be confirm by the ongoing phase 3 randomized trial (REACH2 study).More study is still required to better understand the biological mechanisms underlying the lack of response in a substantial proportion of patients.The treatment of acute GVHD has remained disappointing for decades; ruxolitinib and a few other agents seem to finally offer better therapeutic options.We still have a long road ahead, but the path toward more effective management of acute GVHD and possibly a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms is on the way.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".