Critical appraisal and future outlook on anti-inflammatory biosimilar use in chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biosimilars represent a novel category in the world of follow-up medicinal products with the requirement that they are highly similar but not identical to an approved originator biologic medicine, with no clinically meaningful differences in safety, purity, and potency. In this review, we discuss recent pivotal biosimilar developments for anti-inflammatory therapy in rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology, and the influence of biosimilar availability on patients and payers. Finally, we provide our perspective on the evolution of biosimilar use in these indications in the United States (US) and in Europe and on where this evolution in biopharmaceuticals may lead in the future. Although biosimilars are commonly used in the European Union (EU), there will be an inevitable sea change of acceptance by clinicians, patients, payers, and regulators in the US. It is paramount to educate about biosimilarity, highlighting currently available data gathered from other geographies, in addition to gradually providing clinicians and patients with the necessary experience with these agents ultimately restoring competition in the biologics landscape.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".