ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Predictive models for non-response to conventional treatment in polymyositis and dermatomyositis.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Polymyositis (PM) and dermatomyositis (DM) are the major subtypes of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies with heterogeneous treatment responses. This study aimed to develop a predictive model for identifying PM/DM patients who are non-responsive to conventional therapy by assessing a range of diagnostic tools to guide individualized treatment. Methods: Patients with PM/DM from two medical centers (January 2010-December 2024) were included. Baseline and 12-week post-treatment clinical data were collected. Logistic regression was employed to develop both comprehensive and non-invasive predictive models. Model performance was validated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) in internal and external test sets. Results: The Qingdao cohort comprised 84 patients (age 57.7 ± 1.5 years; 54 females [62.5%]; DM = 53, PM = 31) and the Liaocheng cohort included 22 patients (age 56.4 ± 3.8 years; 15 females [68.2%]; DM = 13, PM = 9). Gender, mSUVmax, and muscle bundle atrophy were identified as independent predictive factors. The comprehensive model achieved an AUC of 0.900 (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.813-1.009) in the training set, demonstrating superior diagnostic performance compared to the non-invasive model. The non-invasive model yielded AUCs of 0.857 (95% CI: 0.766-0.972), 0.742 (95% CI: 0.599-0.984), and 0.765 (95% CI: 0.632-0.987) in the training, internal test, and external test sets, respectively, indicating broader applicability across different cohorts. Both models showed good discrimination and calibration, and decision curve analysis further confirmed their clinical value. Discussion: These findings suggest that predictive models based on clinical, pathological, and imaging features can effectively identify PM/DM patients who are non-responsive to conventional therapy, potentially providing a tool for personalized treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.