MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6926683150 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.5010701.v2

Management of Plaque Psoriasis With Biologic Therapies in Women of Child-Bearing Potential Consensus Paper

2020· other· en· W6926683150 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMultidisciplinary Science and Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExpert opinionDelphi methodDiseaseAlternative medicineMEDLINEEvidence-based medicineDisease managementDelphiSystematic review

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BackgroundPlaque psoriasis (PsO) is a chronic inflammatory disease that often presents at peak reproductive age in women of child-bearing potential (WOCBP). With the emergence of biologic therapies to treat PsO, guidance on disease management in WOCBP is needed to inform treatment decisions before, during, and after pregnancy.ObjectivesTo develop a practical, up-to-date consensus document, based on available evidence and expert opinion where evidence was lacking, in order to guide both Canadian and international clinicians treating PsO in WOCBP.MethodsA panel of 9 Canadian dermatologists with extensive clinical experience managing PsO reviewed the relevant literature from the past 25 years in 3 key domains: overview of PsO in WOCBP and clinical considerations, treatment considerations, and postpartum considerations. The structured literature search focused on WOCBP treated with TNF-alpha inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), IL-23 inhibitors (guselkumab, risankizumab, tildrakizumab), IL-12/23 inhibitors (ustekinumab), and IL-17 inhibitors (brodalumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab). This literature review, along with clinical expertise and opinion, was used to develop concise and clinically relevant consensus statements to guide practical management of PsO in WOCBP. Experts voted on the statements using a modified Delphi process and prespecified agreement cut-off of 75%.Results and implicationsAfter review, discussion, and voting on 19 draft consensus statements at an in-person meeting and remotely, 12 consensus statements were approved by the expert panel. The statements presented here will guide healthcare providers in practical disease management using biologic therapies for the treatment of PsO in WOCBP.

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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataSame topicMultidisciplinary Science and Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207