MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380422753 · doi:10.1177/03000605231175547

Viewpoint about biologic agents for psoriasis: are they immunosuppressants or immunomodulators?

2023· review· en· W4380422753 on OpenAlex
Dea Metko, Tiago Torres, Ronald Vender

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 International Medical Research · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicPsoriasis: Treatment and Pathogenesis
Canadian institutionsDermatrials ResearchMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsoriasisNarrative reviewBiologic AgentsIntensive care medicineImmunologyRheumatoid arthritis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past two decades, promising advancements have emerged in the field of psoriasis management. Most notably, highly effective targeted biologic therapies that offered significant breakthroughs in the management of psoriasis have been developed. One of the most challenging components of marketing and prescribing these biologic therapies has been in classifying them as immunomodulators or immunosuppressants. The purpose of this narrative review was to discuss the features that distinguish immunomodulators from immunosuppressants to successfully categorize the biologic therapies used for psoriasis management and subsequently enhance patient and physician understanding of the risks associated with the use of these drugs.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.259
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.222 · 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