MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213088629 · doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000843

Incidence of Bacterial and Nonbacterial Conjunctivitis in Patients With Atopic Dermatitis Treated With Dupilumab: A US Multidatabase Cohort Study

2022· article· en· W4213088629 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
KeywordsIncidence (geometry)Atopic dermatitisCohort studyAllergic conjunctivitisCohortDupilumabMulticenter study

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab-associated conjunctivitis in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) is not fully characterized. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to characterize the incidence of bacterial and nonbacterial conjunctivitis among patients with AD who initiated dupilumab. METHODS: Pooling longitudinal claims data from 2 US databases, we identified AD patients who newly filled either dupilumab or methotrexate, mycophenolate or cyclosporine, between March 2017 and January 2020. Outcomes were conjunctivitis and its subtypes, bacterial, allergic, and keratoconjunctivitis. Patient follow-up lasted 6 months and 1:1 propensity score (PS) matching-controlled confounding. RESULTS: Within 6 months of treatment initiation, the incidence of conjunctivitis was 6.6% in 3744 dupilumab initiators; bacterial conjunctivitis, 1.5%; allergic conjunctivitis, 2.2%; keratoconjunctivitis, 0.8%; and conjunctivitis requiring ophthalmic medication, 2.7%. After PS matching, dupilumab doubled the risk of conjunctivitis compared with methotrexate (relative risk [RR] 2.12; 1.56-2.91), mycophenolate (RR = 2.43; 1.32-4.47), or cyclosporine (RR = 1.83; 1.05-3.20). Risk of bacterial conjunctivitis was 1.6- to 4.0-fold increased with wide confidence intervals, and allergic conjunctivitis was increased 2.7- to 7-fold. There was no increased risk of keratoconjunctivitis. Patients with comorbid asthma had a further increased risk of conjunctivitis. CONCLUSIONS: One in 15 patients treated with dupilumab developed conjunctivitis driven by bacterial and allergic conjunctivitis and not keratoconjunctivitis. This risk was further increased with comorbid asthma.

Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.

How this classification was reachedexpand

The three-model screen

all 5,600 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: venue_new · design weight: 2684.25 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Cohort study of conjunctivitis incidence with dupilumab; a drug-safety question.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

The cohort study estimates conjunctivitis risk from a treatment and does not study research itself.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Pharmacoepidemiology of dupilumab-associated conjunctivitis; clinical safety, not research practice.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicDermatology and Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207