Previous ineligibility for or treatment failure of ciclosporin does not influence lebrikizumab efficacy in atopic dermatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ciclosporin A (CsA) is the only traditional systemic agent approved for use in Europe to treat atopic dermatitis (AD). It is very effective and often used as the first-line systemic agent, but its long-term use is limited primarily by renal toxicity. Lebrikizumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets interleukin (IL)-13. Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated its efficacy in treating moderate-to-severe AD as monotherapy (ADvocate1 and ADvocate2), and with topical corticosteroids (TCS) (ADhere).1,2 Around half of the participants in these trials were systemic treatment-naïve; in ADhere, only 12% in the lebrikizumab arm were previously exposed to CsA. Therefore, these populations are not representative of patients routinely seen in the clinic in many countries, including the UK, many of whom have already used CsA. In this issue of the BJD, Warren et al. present results from the ADvantage trial,3 which provides evidence for lebrikizumab in a subgroup of participants with a more severe disease trajectory – those who had inadequate response to or were ineligible for CsA – who may be more representative of the real-world population of people with 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".