Expert consensus on the systemic treatment of atopic dermatitis in special populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increasing number of options for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, clinicians need guidance on a practical approach to selecting a systemic agent for specific patient populations. We convened an expert panel consisting of 12 members to conduct a literature review and summarize relevant data related to six scenarios of clinical interest: comorbid asthma, ocular surface disease, history of cancer, past and ongoing infections of interest (including herpes simplex virus, herpes zoster, hepatitis B, and tuberculosis), pregnancy and lactation, and the elderly. We performed a literature search and examined each clinical scenario with respect to three major categories of available systemic agents: traditional systemics (azathioprine, cyclosporine A, methotrexate, and mycophenolate mofetil), Janus kinase inhibitors (abrocitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib), and biologics (dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab). The expert panel and steering committee met virtually to review the data and discuss the drafted consensus statements. A modified Delphi process was used to arrive at a set of final consensus statements related to the systemic treatment of AD in these specific patient populations. To provide practical guidance on the choice of systemic therapy for atopic dermatitis in these six topics of clinical interest, 25 expert consensus statements and a summary of the supporting data are presented herein.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".