Lost-to-follow-up study in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent of and reasons for lost-to-follow-up, as well as its impact on outcome studies in a cohort of lupus patients. METHODS: As of September 1991, 247 patients, in a cohort of 621 patients with SLE, being followed in a long-term prognosis study, had not been seen since 1 March, 1990 and were considered lost-to-follow-up. Patients were contacted and encouraged to return for an evaluation or to answer a questionnaire by telephone. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the lost-to-follow-up and non-lost-to-follow-up patients and the survival experience during the lost-to-follow-up period was compared with that when patients were not considered lost-to-follow-up. Estimated survival curves with and without the information gained through contacts with lost-to-follow-up patients were compared. RESULTS: Of the 247 patients, 29 have died, 66 returned for a full assessment, 84 completed a questionnaire and 68 (11%) were true lost-to-follow-up. The lost-to-follow-up patient group had 10% more Caucasians and 6% more males than the patients under regular follow-up. The estimated survival curves of the entire cohort with and without the new lost-to-follow-up data, calculated as of July 1992, were very similar. There was no evidence of a differential mortality rate during the period in which patients were lost-to-follow-up. Some suggestive evidence that the relative mortality rate comparing the rate during a period of lost-to-follow-up and during a period of active follow-up may depend on disease duration at the time of lost-to-follow-up was found. CONCLUSIONS: While it would be prudent to limit lost-to-follow-up as much as possible, especially for outcomes such as mortality which do not necessarily require a clinic visit, it does not appear that significant bias will be present in prospective studies based on our single clinic database. Since the retrieved 179 lost-to-follow-up patients did not affect survival studies it is likely that the 68 true lost-to-follow-up patients will also not have an impact on prognostic studies. Lupus (2000) 9, 363-367
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».