MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360983727 · doi:10.1007/s40744-023-00545-1

A Narrative Review of Acthar Gel for the Treatment of Myositis

2023· review· en· W4360983727 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Tanya Chandra, Rohit Aggarwal

Bibliographic record

VenueRheumatology and Therapy · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInflammatory Myopathies and Dermatomyositis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals
KeywordsPolymyositisMedicineDermatomyositisMyositisRefractory (planetary science)Proximal muscle weaknessInternal medicineImmunologyMuscle biopsy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) are autoimmune disorders characterized by symmetric proximal muscle weakness and chronic inflammation, with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. The current standard of care includes traditional immunosuppressive pharmacotherapies; however, some patients cannot tolerate or do not adequately respond to these therapies, highlighting the need for alternative treatments for refractory disease. Acthar ® Gel (repository corticotropin injection) is a naturally sourced mixture of adrenocorticotropic hormone analogs and other pituitary peptides that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration since 1952 for use in patients with two subgroups of IIMs, dermatomyositis (DM) and polymyositis (PM). However, it has not been routinely used in the treatment of IIMs. While Acthar may induce steroidogenesis, it also has a steroid-independent mechanism of action by exerting immunomodulatory effects through the activation of melanocortin receptors on immune cells, such as macrophages, B cells, and T cells. Recent clinical trials, retrospective analyses, and case reports add to the growing evidence suggesting that Acthar may be effective in patients with DM and PM. Here we review the current evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of Acthar for the treatment of refractory DM and PM.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRheumatology and TherapySame topicInflammatory Myopathies and DermatomyositisFrench-language works237,207