MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408003542 · doi:10.1080/1750743x.2025.2464528

ROCKET: a phase 3 program evaluating the efficacy and safety of rocatinlimab in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis

2025· article· en· W4408003542 on OpenAlexaff
Emma Guttman‐Yassky, Eric L. Simpson, Robert Bissonnette, Lawrence F. Eichenfield, Kenji Kabashima, Paula Carolina Luna, Jana Hercogová, Lynda Spelman, Margitta Worm, Ehsanollah Esfandiari, Takahiro Arai, Hirotaka Mano, Prista Charuworn, Andrea Wang, Greg Kricorian

Bibliographic record

VenueImmunotherapy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsInnovaderm (Canada)
FundersAmgen
KeywordsAtopic dermatitisMedicineDermatologyRocket (weapon)EngineeringAeronautics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory disease affecting ~ 10% of adults and ~ 20% of children globally. Many patients with moderate-to-severe AD receiving systemic therapies, including biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, fail to reach or maintain treatment goals due to lack of durable response or safety/tolerability issues. Rocatinlimab is a T-cell rebalancing therapy that inhibits and reduces pathogenic T cells by targeting the OX40 receptor. ROCKET, a large, global phase 3 program of eight clinical trials (NCT05398445; NCT05651711; NCT05724199; NCT05899816; NCT05704738; NCT05633355; NCT05882877; NCT06224192), will evaluate the efficacy, durability of response, and long-term safety of rocatinlimab as monotherapy and combination therapy in adult and adolescent patients with moderate-to-severe AD with or without prior exposure to biologics or systemic JAK inhibitors.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations16
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueImmunotherapySame topicDermatology and Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207