MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391227055 · doi:10.1111/ajd.14213

Real‐life experience with dimethylfumarate in palmoplantar psoriasis: A multicentre retrospective Italian study

2024· article· en· W4391227055 on OpenAlexaff
Emanuele Trovato, Burlando Martina, Capalbo Eugenio, Federico Diotallevi, Lora Viviana, Pinto Lorenzo Maria, Gaeta Shumak Ruslana, Fastame Maria Thais, M.T. Navío Marco, Campione Elena, Annamaria Offidani, P. Aurora, Prignano Francesca

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Journal of Dermatology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicPsoriasis: Treatment and Pathogenesis
Canadian institutionsUniversity Hospital Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsoriasisRetrospective cohort studyDermatologyMEDLINESurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Palmoplantar (PP) psoriasis is considered one of the most hard-to-treat areas with important impact on patients' quality of life, and few data are available about the efficacy of dimethylfumarate (DMF) on these areas. In our noninterventional multicentre retrospective cohort study of patients with PP psoriasis treated with DMF, effectiveness was evaluated as mean pp Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (ppPASI) reduction and as proportion of patients that reach ppPASI 75 at 4, 12, 24 and 48 weeks. The reduction in ppPASI was 23.5% at w4, 49.7% at w12, 69.1% at w24 and 81.1% at w48. pp Investigator's Global Assessment (ppIGA) 0/1 was reached by 5 patients (10.64%) at w4, 10 patients (23.8%) at w12, 11 patients (40.7%) at w24 and 12 patients (60%) at w48 confirming that DMF could represent an effective therapy in patients affected by PP psoriasis. Overall, the treatment was well tolerated although only 24 patients made it to 24 weeks of therapy and 28 patients completed the observation period at 48 weeks. None of the patients reported adverse events requiring discontinuation of the drug. However, this discontinuation rate is in line with clinical trials and real-world evidence.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.925

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralasian Journal of DermatologySame topicPsoriasis: Treatment and PathogenesisFrench-language works237,207