Ustekinumab Efficacy and Safety in Children with Plaque, Erythrodermic and Palmoplanar Forms of Psoriasis: Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. The study of psoriasis biological therapy aspects in children has certain topicality due to the small number and disunity of individual observations and the lack of special registers for pediatric patients. Objective. Our aim was to study ustekinumab efficacy and safety in children with plaque (PP), erythrodermic (EP) and palmoplanar (PPP) forms of psoriasis. Methods. The analysis of ustekinumab efficacy and safety has been carrying out for 1 year. The evaluation of therapy efficacy was based on definition of improvement of PASI scores (PASI 75, PASI 90 and PASI 100) on the 16th, 28th, 40th and 52nd weeks of follow-up and children's dermatology life quality index (CDLQI). Ustekinumab therapy safety analysis was based on registration and evaluation of adverse effects. Results. The study included 67 children with PP, EP and PPP aged 12 to 18 years. PP group results: the PASI 75 response at the 52nd week of therapy was observed in 35 children (100%), PASI 90 — in 33 (94%), PASI 100 — in 30 (86%). EP group results: 10 patients (56%) have reached PASI 75 on the 16th week, while none of patients have improved to PASI 90 and PASI 100 scores. The PASI 75 response at the 52nd week of therapy was observed in 18 children (100%), PASI 90 — in 17 (94%), PASI 100 — in 7 (39%). Only 1 patient (7%) with PPP has showed the score decrease to PASI 75 on the 16th week. Adverse effects were reported in 2 patients. Conclusion. Ustekinumab is the effective and safe treatment for moderate and severe forms of PP and EP in children, and it can also be considered as one of the alternative methods for PPP treatment in pediatrics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".