MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407177059 · doi:10.1089/derm.2024.0515

Predictive Factors for Poor Responders to Tralokinumab in Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis: A Real-World Analysis

2025· article· en· W4407177059 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Teppei Hagino, Hidehisa Saeki, Eita Fujimoto, Naoko Kanda

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtopic dermatitisDermatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstracts: Background: Some patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) show insufficient response to treatment with tralokinumab, an anti-interleukin-13 antibody. Identifying predictive factors for poor responders to tralokinumab can help optimize treatment strategies for AD patients. Objective: To identify predictive factors for poor responders to tralokinumab, defined as an investigator’s global assessment >2 at week 12 or 24. Methods: A prospective study was conducted from October 2023 to August 2024, including 109 Japanese patients with moderate-to-severe AD. Baseline features were compared between poor responders versus responders at week 12 or 24. Results: Poor responders at week 12 showed higher baseline eczema area and severity index (EASI), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and eosinophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (ELR) compared with responders. Poor responders at week 24 had older age, longer disease duration, and higher proportions of previous systemic therapies, previous dupilumab, or previous 15 mg upadacitinib treatment, compared with responders. Conclusions: Higher baseline EASI, LDH, and ELR may predict poor response to tralokinumab at week 12. Older age, longer disease duration, and previous usage of systemic therapy, dupilumab, or 15 mg upadacitinib may predict poor response to tralokinumab at week 24. AD patients with the above features may as well avoid tralokinumab treatment.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.277
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.281 · 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.

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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicDermatology and Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207