Bibliographic record
Abstract
https://doi.org/10.1093/bjd/ljac052 Psoriasis is a chronic, immune-mediated inflammatory skin disease that requires long-term treatment. New systemic therapies for psoriasis, such as biologics, have greatly improved patient outcomes. However, long-term safety data are limited, and the efficacy of biologics may decline with prolonged use.1,2 Frequent changes in biologic therapy for safety or efficacy concerns contribute to disease burden and come with expensive loading periods. Bimekizumab – a monoclonal IgG1 antibody targeting interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F – has shown promising results in head-to-head trials against several biologics for the treatment of psoriasis.3–5 In the 56-week BE SURE phase III trial, bimekizumab showed superior efficacy and comparable safety to adalimumab, a tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor that is often used as a first-line biologic. Despite early positive results, it was unclear whether these findings would be sustained over time.3 In this issue of the BJD, Thaçi et al. describe interim results from the BE SURE and BE BRIGHT open-label extension trial, which assessed the long-term safety and tolerability of bimekizumab among patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis.6 Upon completion of BE SURE, patients were offered the opportunity to enrol in BE BRIGHT and continue receiving bimekizumab treatment for at least 4 years. The primary outcome was the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. Secondary outcomes included ≥ 90% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 90) and Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1. Interim analysis to week 104 found that clinical response was sustained, regardless of the maintenance dosing regimen [every 4 weeks (q4w) or q8w]. Moreover, patients who switched from adalimumab to bimekizumab with no washout period showed similar long-term response rates to patients who received bimekizumab at baseline.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.041 |
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".