MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388626089 · doi:10.25251/skin.7.supp.293

Sustained Scalp, Eyebrow, and Eyelash Hair Regrowth with Ritlecitinib Through Week 48 in Patients with Alopecia Areata: Post-Hoc Analysis of the ALLEGRO Phase 2b/3 Study

2023· article· en· W4388626089 on OpenAlexaff
Melissa Piliang, Charles Lynde, Brett King, Paradi Mirmirani, Rodney Sinclair, Robert Wołk, Samuel H. Zwillich, Helen Tran, Fan Zhang, Liza Takiya

Bibliographic record

VenueSKIN The Journal of Cutaneous Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHair Growth and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersConcert PharmaceuticalsPfizerEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsAlopecia areataEyebrowScalpEyelashDermatologyPost-hoc analysisMedicinePost hocHair lossHair growthSurgeryOrthodonticsInternal medicineBiologyPhysiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sustained scalp, eyebrow, and eyelash hair regrowth with ritlecitinib through Week 48 in patients with alopecia areata: post hoc analysis of the ALLEGRO phase 2b/3 study BACKGROUND • Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune disease that has an underlying immuno-inflammatory pathogenesis and is characterized by nonscarring hair loss ranging from small patches to complete scalp, face, and/or body hair loss 1 • Ritlecitinib, an oral JAK3/TEC family kinase inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy and safety in patients aged ≥12 years with AA and ≥50% scalp hair loss in the ALLEGRO phase 2b/3 trial (NCT03732807) 2 -Significant improvements in the proportion of patients with Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score ≤20 (≤20% of scalp without hair) at Week 24 (primary endpoint) were observed in the 50 mg and 30 mg ritlecitinib treatment groups (± 200 mg loading dose) vs placebo OBJECTIVE • This post hoc analysis evaluated sustained scalp, eyebrow, and eyelash hair regrowth over 48 weeks in ritlecitinib-treated patients who had a clinical response at Week 24

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSKIN The Journal of Cutaneous MedicineSame topicHair Growth and DisordersFrench-language works237,207