MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297855220 · doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000950

Atopic Dermatitis: A Guide to Transitioning to Janus Kinase Inhibitors

2022· article· en· W4297855220 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jonathan W. Rick, Peter Lio, Swetha Atluri, Jennifer L. Hsiao, Vivian Y. Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDupilumabMedicineAtopic dermatitisGuidelinePolypharmacyJanus kinaseIntensive care medicineDrugMethotrexateDermatologyTacrolimusDosingDiseaseClinical trialCalcineurinPharmacologyInternal medicineTransplantation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) are promising medications that the Food and Drug Administration recently approved for treatment of atopic dermatitis in January 2022. These medications offer a novel therapeutic mechanism and may be an additional treatment avenue for patients who are currently reliant on conventional immunosuppressants, such as cyclosporine A, methotrexate, or mycophenolate mofetil, or newer medications, such as dupilumab. However, redundant treatment puts patients at risk for excessive toxicity and polypharmacy, whereas abrupt tapering of a preexisting regimen may cause flares of the disease. Thus, transitioning to JAKis should be implemented strategically to retain the therapeutic benefit and minimize the risk of flares. Herein, we outline gradual transition schemas for patients needing to transition to JAKis from conventional immunosuppressants or dupilumab. There is no evidence-based guideline to instruct this transition to JAKis, and our recommendations are based on expert experience and the review of efficacy data from pivotal trials.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.021

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicDermatology and Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207