Comparison of Low-Dose Interleukin 2 Therapy in Conjunction With Standard Therapy in Patients With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus vs Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review aims to compare the efficacy and safety of a novel immunotherapy with low-dose interleukin 2 (IL2) across two of the most prevalent autoimmune diseases i.e. systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Contemporary therapeutic practices have not been able to achieve complete remission from these autoimmune disorders. In contrast, low-dose IL2 has shown promise in achieving this therapeutic goal via inducing self-tolerance in patients with autoimmune diseases; however, due to variable irregularities among autoimmune processes of variable diseases, the benefit of low-dose IL2 could not be determined among different autoimmune diseases. Therefore, we conducted a study to compare low-dose IL2 therapy effects on SLE and RA. We systematically screened four databases: PubMed, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), PubMed Central (PMC), and Google Scholar. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were implemented. Quality appraisal of studies chosen for the review was done using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias (RoB) assessment tool for randomized controlled trials, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and JBI critical appraisal tool for non-randomized clinical trials. Information was gathered from seven articles: three randomized controlled trials and four non-randomized clinical trials. Our review concluded that low-dose IL2 therapy in conjunction with respective standard therapies for SLE and RA has a higher efficacy and safety profile as compared to standard therapy alone and the therapeutic effects were comparable in both SLE and RA patients treated with low-dose IL2; however, this novel intervention does not seem to have a significant corrective effect on the biomarkers of RA as it does for SLE biomarkers.
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 | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".