MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402731749 · doi:10.1089/derm.2024.0230

Predictive Factors for Long-Term High Responders to Upadacitinib Treatment in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis

2024· article· en· W4402731749 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Teppei Hagino, Hidehisa Saeki, Eita Fujimoto, Naoko Kanda

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtopic dermatitisDermatologyTerm (time)Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Background: Upadacitinib, a Janus kinase 1 inhibitor, is an effective medicine for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). Identifying long-term responders to upadacitinib is crucial for optimal treatment strategies in real-world clinical practice. To identify predictive factors for long-term high responders to upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg, defined as achievers of investigator’s global assessment (IGA) 0/1 with ≥2-point improvement from baseline IGA at week 48. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted from August 2021 to September 2023 on 63 AD patients treated with upadacitinib 15 mg and 31 patients with 30 mg. Patients of each group were categorized into long-term high responders (achievers of IGA 0/1 at week 48) and low responders (non-achievers). We compared baseline values of clinical indexes and laboratory parameters between long-term responders and nonresponders. Results: In 15 mg group, long-term high responders showed lower rate of bronchial asthma (BA), lower values of baseline eczema area and severity index (EASI) of head and neck, IgE, and systemic inflammatory response index (SIRI) compared with low responders. In 30 mg group, long-term high responders showed lower baseline levels of IgE compared with low responders. Conclusion: Patients with lower baseline EASI of head and neck, IgE, or SIRI or without BA and those with lower baseline IgE may have a higher potential to become long-term high responders to upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg treatment, respectively.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.747

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicDermatology and Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207