Reduced risk of mortality associated with systemic psoriasis treatment in the Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR): A nested case-control analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effects of systemic therapy on mortality risk among patients with psoriasis are not fully understood. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of systemic treatment on mortality risk in patients enrolled in the Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry. METHODS: Nested case-control analyses were performed to estimate mortality risk. Cases were defined as patients who died while participating in the Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry. Cases were matched (1:4) with controls by age, race, sex, and geographic region. Evaluated treatments included methotrexate, ustekinumab, and tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors. Exposure was defined as at least 1 dose of treatment within 3 months before death and was stratified by duration of therapy. RESULTS: Among 12,090 patients, 341 deaths occurred, matched to 1364 controls. Biologic treatment within the preceding 3 months was protective against mortality versus no exposure: odds ratio (OR) for exposure of less than 1 year, 0.08 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03-0.23); OR for exposure of 1 year or longer, 0.09 (95% CI, 0.06-0.13). Methotrexate was protective against mortality only with exposure for 1 year or longer (OR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.02-0.28). LIMITATIONS: Observational studies are subject to unmeasured confounding. CONCLUSIONS: Biologic therapy was associated with reduced mortality risk in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, regardless of treatment duration; methotrexate reduced risk only with exposure for 1 year or longer.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".