Efficacy of Adalimumab in Non-Infectious Uveitis Across Different Etiologies: A Post Hoc Analysis of the VISUAL I and VISUAL II Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To assess efficacy of adalimumab versus placebo in patients with active or inactive noninfectious intermediate, posterior, or panuveitis across different etiologies.Methods: VISUAL I (V–I) and VISUAL II (V–II) clinical trials included adults with active or inactive uveitis, respectively, randomized to receive adalimumab or placebo. In a post hoc subgroup analysis, time to treatment failure (TTF) starting at week 6 (V–I) or week 2 (V–II) was analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier method. Hazard ratios (HR) for TTF with 95% CI were calculated with Cox proportional hazards regression.Results: The analysis included 217 V–I patients and 226 V–II patients. Treatment failure occurred later and risk was significantly lower in patients with idiopathic uveitis receiving adalimumab versus those receiving placebo in V–I (HR = 0.50 [CI, 0.30–0.84]; P = .006) and V–II (HR = 0.43 [CI, 0.22–0.83]; P = .010).Conclusions: Treatment failure risk was lower in patients with idiopathic noninfectious uveitis receiving adalimumab versus those receiving placebo.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".