Bibliographic record
Abstract
CADTH recommends that Tavneos not be reimbursed by public drug plans as adjunctive treatment for adults with severe active antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody-associated vasculitis (ANCA-AV) (granulomatosis with polyangiitis [GPA] and microscopic polyangiitis [MPA]). One clinical trial demonstrated that Tavneos in combination with ANCA-AV background therapy (including glucocorticoids and drugs that reduce immune system function) was as good as oral prednisone (60 mg dose reduced over 20 weeks) in combination with ANCA-AV background therapy for showing a reduction in disease symptoms at week 26 and was better than oral prednisone for maintaining symptom improvement at week 52. However, it was unclear if Tavneos offered a meaningful clinical benefit over other treatments used for ANCA-AV mainly because rituximab was not used as maintenance therapy in the trial, as is currently recommended by Canadian guidelines, and there is uncertainty around the clinical meaningfulness of the differences between the treatment groups for outcomes that assessed renal function, relapse, and Short Form [36] Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2). There was not enough evidence to conclude that Tavneos met patients’ needs for a treatment that reduces or eliminates the use of glucocorticoids and their side effects as well as improves their health-related quality of life (HRQoL).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.012 |
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".