MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321612402 · doi:10.1177/12034754231156100

The Use of Janus Kinase Inhibitors for Lichen Planus: An Evidence-Based Review

2023· review· en· W4321612402 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOral Health Pathology and Treatment
Canadian institutionsProbity Medical ResearchHealth Sciences CentreQueen's UniversityWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTofacitinibRuxolitinibJanus kinaseInternal medicineDermatologyJanus kinase inhibitorSurgeryRheumatoid arthritisReceptorMyelofibrosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Lichen Planus (LP) is a dermatological disorder characterized by violaceous papules that affect the cutaneous region, nails, scalp, and mucous membranes. Current molecular and clinical studies point to the Janus Kinase-signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway as a potential effector of LP pathology. Objective This systematic review summarizes the current reported literature outcomes for patients receiving JAK inhibitors to treat LP. Methods MEDLINE and Embase were searched on 16 October, 2022, and 15 original articles were included, with 56 LP patients. Results (mean age: 54.5 years, range: 26-81 years, male: 26.8%). The treatment outcomes were included for the following JAK inhibitors: tofacitinib ( n = 30), baricitinib ( n = 16), ruxolitinib ( n = 12), and upadacitinib ( n = 2). Patient outcomes were classified into complete resolution, partial resolution, and no resolution. Patients achieving complete resolution represented 25% ( n = 4/16) in the baricitinib group, 10% ( n = 3/30) in the tofacitinib group, 16.7% ( n = 2/12) in the ruxolitinib group, and 100% (2/2) in the upadacitinib group. Partial resolution patients represented 31.3% ( n = 5/16) of baricitinib patients, 60% ( n = 18/30) of tofacitinib patients, and 83% ( n = 10/12) of ruxolitinib patients. 43.8% ( n = 7/16) of baricitinib patients and 10% ( n = 9/30) of tofacitinib patients had no resolution of lesions. Conclusion This review also highlights the significance of utilizing a uniform outcome measure for LP, as it aids in reporting more generalizable results, reduces reporting bias, and ultimately lead to improved clinical outcomes for LP patients.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.809
Threshold uncertainty score0.752

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.412
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.038 · 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