Discontinuation of immunoglobulin replacement therapy in patients with secondary antibody deficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Secondary immunodeficiency is becoming a greater medical concern as the usage of immunosuppressive and biological treatments has increased. Individuals with certain medical conditions, such as hematological malignancies, can also have secondary immunodeficiency. Immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IGRT), which has been used for decades in inherited or primary immunodeficiency, provides some protection to patients with acquired and predominant antibody deficiency, i.e. secondary antibody deficiency (SAD). However, IGRT is costly, and supplies are limited. Although there are clinical guidelines on when to initiate IGRT, there is no guideline on when to discontinue it. AREAS COVERED: The authors reviewed existing literature and provided an overview of the current state of knowledge regarding IGRT discontinuation in SAD patients. EXPERT OPINION: Long-term supplementary immunoglobulin may not be necessary. Although it is possible to successfully transition away from IGRT in individuals with SAD, evidence-based practices are limited. Without clear guidelines and reliable prognostic markers, IGRT discontinuation practices are restricted to clinical judgment. For this reason, additional research should be conducted to identify markers that indicate the recovery of humoral immunity. Furthermore, the derivation and validation of a set of combined clinical and laboratory criteria to allow safe and timely IGRT discontinuation is warranted.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".