MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386820153 · doi:10.1080/14740338.2023.2248872

Janus kinase inhibitor—Tofacitinib associated with pemphigus: an analysis of the FDA adverse event reporting system data

2023· article· en· W4386820153 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Li Wang, Bin Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Drug Safety · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutoimmune Bullous Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChinese Pharmaceutical Association
KeywordsTofacitinibMedicineJanus kinase inhibitorAdverse effectJanus kinaseAdverse Event Reporting SystemPemphigusDermatologySafety profilePharmacologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To establish the association between the therapy of Janus kinase inhibitors and the adverse event of pemphigus in patients with rheumatologic and inflammatory disorders. METHODS: A disproportionality analysis using multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker was conducted to identify signals between medication and adverse events within the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. RESULTS: The spontaneous reporting system contained 3,032 pemphigus reports associated with two Janus kinase inhibitors, namely Tofacitinib and Upadacitinib. The year/reporter/geographic area/country/age/sex/indication with the highest number of cases were the year of 2021, physician, North America, Canada, age between 40-49, female and rheumatoid arthritis, respectively. A significant signal was detected in the Tofacitinib group. CONCLUSION: Pemphigus, a rare and potentially fatal adverse event, was found to occur more frequently in patients receiving Tofacitinib. High-risk individuals were identified as female, age between 40-49, or with rheumatoid arthritis. Medication, adverse events, and underlying disease conditions were identified as potential contributing factors. Rheumatology and dermatology specialists should exercise increased vigilance in clinical practice.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Drug SafetySame topicAutoimmune Bullous Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207