MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401219177 · doi:10.1111/jdv.20271

International consensus on methotrexate dosing for patients with atopic dermatitis: An <scp>eDelphi</scp> study

2024· article· en· W4401219177 on OpenAlexaff
Anouk G. M. Caron, Astrid M. van Huizen, Annelie H. Musters, Louise A. A. Gerbens, M. A. Middelkamp Hup, Carsten Flohr, Alan D. Irvine, Christian Vestergaard, Ketty Peris, Heather A. Brandling‐Bennett, Aaron M. Drucker, Phyllis I. Spuls

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsWomen's College Hospital
FundersEuropean Academy of Dermatology and VenereologyAmsterdam University Medical Centers
KeywordsMedicineAtopic dermatitisMethotrexateDosingDermatologyMEDLINEDermatologic agentsPharmacologyInternal medicineMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite the widespread off-label use of methotrexate (MTX) for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD), there is limited high-quality evidence on dosing regimens and existing guidelines do not provide clear recommendations regarding dosing strategies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to achieve international consensus among AD experts to standardize the dosing regimen for MTX treatment in adults and children with AD. METHODS: An electronic Delphi (eDelphi) study was conducted from October 2021 to September 2022. Recruitment was conducted through dermatology societies and AD interest groups. Participation was open to dermatologists and dermatology residents experienced in treating AD patients with MTX. The study consisted of three online rounds. The first round was informed by a systematic review of relevant literature, and subsequent rounds were adjusted based on the results of the previous round. Participants voted on 19 proposals using a 9-point scale (1-3 disagree, 4-6 neither agree nor disagree, 7-9 agree). Consensus was achieved when at least 70% of participants agreed, and less than 15% disagreed. Proposals that did not reach consensus in the first three rounds were discussed in a consensus meeting, where consensus was defined as less than 30% disagreement. RESULTS: In total, 152 participants completed Round 1, 104 (68%) completed all survey rounds, and 43 (28%) joined the consensus meeting. Consensus was achieved on 7 proposals in Round 1, 4 in Round 2 and 6 in Round 3. The final 2 proposals reached consensus during the consensus meeting. Consensus topics include test dose, start dose, maximum dose, administration route, dosing schedule, management of stopping treatment, treatment duration and folic acid supplementation. CONCLUSIONS: This eDelphi study achieved consensus on 19 proposals related to MTX dosing for adults and children with AD. These results aim to guide prescribing decisions and encourage a standardized global approach to MTX use in AD.

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)0.163
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.177
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.863

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1630.177
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the European Academy of Dermatology and VenereologySame topicDermatology and Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207