MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378084823 · doi:10.3389/fendo.2023.1160936

Efficacy and Safety of intravenous monoclonal antibodies in patients with moderate-to-severe active Graves’ophthalmopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4378084823 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Endocrinology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Eye Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWest China Hospital, Sichuan UniversitySichuan UniversityDepartment of Science and Technology of Sichuan ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineTocilizumabMeta-analysisCochrane LibraryRituximabAdverse effectInternal medicineDiplopiaGraves' ophthalmopathyRandomized controlled trialMEDLINERelative riskSurgeryConfidence intervalGraves' disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Backgrounds: The effects of various treatments on Graves' ophthalmopathy (GO) have been studied. As monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been proposed for the treatment of moderate to severe GO, direct comparisons between different mAbs are lacking.We therefore conducted this meta-analysis to objectively compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous mAbs. Methods: To identify eligible trials, references published before September 2022 were electronically searched in PubMed, Web of Science, Pubmed, Embase,Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI,Wan-Fang and ICTRP databases.The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool were used to assess the risk of bias of the original studies.The primary and secondary outcomes were the response and inactivation rates, with the secondary outcomes being the clinical activity score (CAS),the improvement of proptosis and diplopia improvement,and the adverse event rate. Publication bias was evaluated, along with subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Results: A total of 12 trials with 448 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed that TCZ (tocilizumab) was most likely to be the best treatment in terms of response according to indirect contrast, followed by TMB (teprotumumab) and RTX (rituximab).TCZ, followed by TMB and RTX, was also most likely to be the best treatment in terms of reducing proptosis. In terms of improving diplopia, TMB was most likely to be the best treatment, followed by TCZ and RTX.TCZ was the highest probability of safety, followed by RTX and TMB. Conclusions: Based on the best available evidence,TCZ should be the preferred treatment for moderate to severe GO.In the absence of head-to-head trials,indirect comparisons of treatments are routinely used to estimate the effectiveness of the treatments of interest. In addition,the optimal dose and potential mechanism of action of monoclonal antibodies remain to be established,and it is encouraging that the treatment paradigm for GO may change in the future.This study was designed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for conducting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)(27). Systematic Review Registration: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42023398170.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.283 · 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