Disease Modulation Versus Modification: A Call for Revised Outcome Metrics in the Treatment of Thyroid Eye Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This perspective introduces the concepts of disease-modulating and -modifying therapy for thyroid eye disease and offers novel metrics for therapeutic outcomes. METHODS: A focused literature review was performed. RESULTS: Modulators are treatments that suppress disease symptoms whereas modifiers alter the natural history of a disease. Though many drugs are capable of exhibiting both effects, consideration of a drug's primary effect is useful when considering therapeutic options. For thyroid eye disease, corticosteroids and teprotumumab are effective at modulating many signs and symptoms of the disease, particularly those related to soft tissue inflammation. Orbital radiotherapy and rituximab have demonstrated effectiveness at durably modifying the natural history of thyroid eye disease. CONCLUSIONS: Outcome metrics should reflect the unique therapeutic objectives associated with disease modulation and modification. This conceptual framework should guide treatment of thyroid eye disease.
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 | 0.049 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".