Upadacitinib therapy in refractory inflammatory myositis: a case series of 10 patients
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of upadacitinib in treatment-refractory inflammatory myositis. METHODS: Patients with refractory inflammatory myositis treated with upadacitinib from a single urban centre in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, were included from September 2020 to June 2023. The medical records of these patients were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: 10 total patients were identified for review, including 5 classic dermatomyositis (DM), 3 amyopathic DM (ADM) and 2 antisynthetase syndrome. The patients failed an average of four immunosuppressants before initiation of upadacitinib. Three had prior Janus kinase inhibitor therapy with tofacitinib. In the classic DM and ADM aggregate group, upadacitinib offered clinically and statistically significant cutaneous improvement. Lack of active muscle disease at baseline precluded analysis of the effect of upadacitinib on muscle weakness. Nine patients remained on upadacitinib at the end of the study period. One patient discontinued upadacitinib due to severe facial acne. CONCLUSION: Upadacitinib appears to be effective in targeting cutaneous manifestations of refractory inflammatory DM. Further research is still needed to validate its efficacy on a broader population scale.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it