MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

RESPONSE TO PLACEBO IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE LUPUS NEPHRITIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND POOLED ANALYSIS

2025· review· en· W4410513078 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ayesha Nomaan, Philippe‐Antoine Bilodeau, Konstantinos Tselios

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical CentreMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLupus nephritisMeta-analysisPlaceboInternal medicinePooled analysisSystemic lupus erythematosusSystematic reviewMEDLINEImmunologyDermatologyAlternative medicinePathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PV129 / #332 Poster Topic: AS15 - Lupus Nephritis-Clinical Background/Purpose Lupus Nephritis (LN) may result in end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) in up to one-third of the patients 10 years after diagnosis. Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have failed to demonstrate the superiority of biologic drugs over standard of care (SoC). The aim of this systematic review was to quantify the response to placebo (and SoC) in patients with active LN. Methods Systematic review (2020 PRISMA statement). PubMed database was searched (01/2000-09/2024) for phase II/III RCTs of biologics in LN. The primary endpoint was complete renal response (CRR, proteinuria <0.5 g/day and serum creatinine <120% from baseline at 48-52 weeks. Secondary endpoints were partial (PRR, 50% improvement in proteinuria and serum creatinine <120% from baseline at 48-52 weeks) and overall renal response (CRR + PRR). The expected and actual differential responses were also recorded. Descriptive statistics were used. Results A total of 10 RCTs (n=2318 in total) were included with 1006 patients treated with placebo and SoC. Baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. CRR was achieved by 176/660 patients (26.7%), and PRR was achieved by 146/527 patients (27.7%) (Figure 1A). The expected differential response rate was 20%; the actual differential response rate was 7.5% (Figure 1B). Safety: infections 46.4%, serious infections 12%, malignancies 0.2%, deaths 2.88%. Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the placebo (+ SoC) treated patients Figure 1. A. Complete (CRR), partial (PRR), overall (ORR) renal response and percentage of patients achieving the primary endpoint of each study at 48-52 weeks. B. Expected and actual differential treatment effect. Conclusions Approximately 27% of the placebo (+SoC)-treated patients achieved complete renal response while more than half of them achieved an overall (CRR+PRR) renal response at 48 to 52 weeks in RCTs with biologics in LN. There was a significant discrepancy between the expected and actual differential treatment effect that raises significant points to consider for the design of future studies.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.027
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.320
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research→French-language works237,207→