Open-label treatment extension of ruxolitinib cream in vitiligo: findings from the Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in Vitiligo (TRuE-V) long-term extension phase III study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present data from the Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in Vitiligo (TRuE-V) long-term extension (LTE) study evaluating repigmentation outcomes with continued 1.5% ruxolitinib cream treatment in patients who did not achieve near-complete facial repigmentation in TRuE-V1/TRuE-V2. Among patients in the TRuE-V1/TRuE-V2 trials who applied ruxolitinib cream from day 1, approximately 66% achieved F-VASI 75 (indicative of treatment success) at week 104, increasing from nearly 31% at week 52 (TRuE-V LTE baseline); similar repigmentation improvements were reported in patients who switched from vehicle to ruxolitinib cream after TRuE-V1/TRuE-V2 at week 24, albeit with lower overall response rates due to the shorter duration of ruxolitinib cream application. These findings indicate that continued ruxolitinib cream treatment allows further repigmentation in many patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".