Real-world short-term treatment effects of Ixekizumab in Chinese patients with psoriasis: a single-center retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
摘要： 【摘要】 目的 评估依奇珠单抗在真实世界中治疗银屑病患者的短期疗效，探讨影响依奇珠单抗短期疗效的因素。方法 回顾性收集2019年11月至2021年9月湘雅医院皮肤科收治接受依奇珠单抗治疗银屑病患者的基线特征和短期疗效评估结果。患者基线特征采用描述性分析方法，连续变量以M（Q1，Q3）描述，分类变量以百分比描述。依奇珠单抗治疗前后疾病严重程度的比较采用Wilcoxon符号秩和检验或配对McNemar检验。采用多因素logistic回归分析探索依奇珠单抗治疗4周的疗效影响因素。结果 共纳入118例银屑病患者，男94例、女24例，年龄M（Q1，Q3）为43.4（32.5，53.0）岁，以斑块状寻常型银屑病（99/118，83.9%）和重度银屑病（72/105，68.6%）为主，皮损主要位于头皮（59/116，50.9%）。49例接受依奇珠单抗治疗2周后，27例（55.1%）银屑病皮损面积和严重程度指数（PASI）评分改善50%（PASI50）；治疗4周后，分别有44例（89.8%）、30例（61.2%）、13例（26.5%）、10例（20.4%）达PASI50/75/90/100，且PASI评分［2.1（1.1，7.1）］、体表皮损面积［3.9%（0.5%，14.5%）］、皮肤病生活质量指数评分［1.0（0.0，2.0）］和医生整体评估（PGA）评分［1.0（1.0，3.0）］均显著低于基线各项评分［12.4（8.8，23.2）、22.0%（11.3%，43.4%）、6.0（3.0，11.0）、4.0（3.0，5.0），均P < 0.001］。多因素logistic回归分析显示，患者身体质量指数显著影响依奇珠单抗治疗4周后PASI75应答率（OR = 0.814，95% CI：0.659 ~ 0.958，P = 0.029）及PGA0/1的患者比例（OR = 0.743，95% CI: 0.562 ~ 0.917，P = 0.017），且基线BSA评分与依奇珠单抗治疗4周后PGA0/1的患者比例显著相关（OR = 0.924，95% CI：0.870 ~ 0.968，P = 0.003）。结论 依奇珠单抗治疗4周可显著改善银屑病严重程度，且在基线疾病严重程度较轻和体质指数较低的患者中依奇珠单抗疗效更佳。
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".