MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4410715772 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.2025-0390.o072

IDENTIFYING HOMOGENOUS ENDOPHENOTYPES IN CHILDHOOD-ONSET SLE WITH DATA-DRIVEN METHODS

2025· article· en· W4410715772 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.
venuePublié dans une revue dont le pays d'attache est le Canada.

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineAgricultural and Biological Sciences
ThématiqueAgricultural and Rural Development Research
Établissements canadiensHospital for Sick Children
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineEndophenotypePediatricsPsychiatryCognition

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

O072 / #800 Topic: AS18 - Pediatric SLE Late-Breaking Abstract ABSTRACT CONCURRENT SESSION 12: PEDIATRIC SLE – ADVANCES IN DISEASE OUTCOMES AND MENTAL HEALTH 24-05-2025 10:40 AM - 11:40 AM Background/Purpose Childhood-onset Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (cSLE) is a clinically heterogeneous autoimmune disease. We hypothesized that data-driven methods would identify clinically homogeneous patient subgroups that may represent cSLE endotypes with distinct genetics. Methods We included patients diagnosed with cSLE between January 1992-October 2023. All patients met 2019 ACR-EULAR classification criteria and were genotyped on Illumina multiethnic arrays. Ungenotyped single nucleotide polymorphisms were imputed with TopMed as a referent. We extracted SLE manifestations, date of each manifestation onset and demographics from dedicated Lupus databases. Ancestry was genetically inferred using principal components and ADMIXTURE with 1000 Genomes as a referent. We used time from SLE diagnosis to each manifestation to identify patient clusters using similarity network fusion (SNF), a data-driven method. We used Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox proportional-hazard models to compare clusters. We tested cluster differences in demographic and manifestation prevalences using χ 2 or Fisher’s exact test, and time to each SLE manifestation onset with log-rank tests. Our clustering was validated with simulation-based sensitivity analysis (1000 iteration of simulated SNF). Each iteration randomly subsampled 70% of our cohort, performed SNF and tested cluster differences in demographics, manifestation prevalence and each SLE manifestation onset. Genetic studies tested 162 SLE associated genes from 3 transancestral SLE genome wide association studies and 33 monogenic SLE genes with cluster membership using sequence kernel association tests (SKAT). SKAT was weighted by minor allele frequency and adjusted for sex, ancestry and age of diagnosis. The threshold for significance was adjusted for multiple comparison with the Bonferroni correction ( P < 2.6 x10^-4; 0.05 / 195). Results Our cohort included 442 cSLE patients. 83% were female and the median age of SLE diagnosis was 13.6 years (Q1-Q3: 12.0-15.8). The majority of patients were of European (27%) and East Asian (26%) ancestry, followed by South Asian (18%), Admixed (17%) and African (12%) ancestry. SNF identified 2 clusters. Patients in cluster 1 (n = 205) were predominantly of European ancestry (42%), while cluster 2 (n = 237) was mainly composed of patients of East Asian (30%) and South Asian (22%) ancestry ( P = 3x10^-9). Patients in cluster 2 had higher prevalence of class III/IV lupus nephritis, fever, oral ulcers, hypocomplementemia, anemia, leukopenia, anti-cardiolipin and anti-Smith antibodies compared to patients in cluster 1 ( P < 1x10^-7; Figure 1). Moreover, patients in cluster 2 had an earlier onset of developing the same 9 SLE manifestations as the risk of developing each manifestation at any time was higher in cluster 2 compared to cluster 1 (HR > 1.4; P < 4x10^-3). Simulation-based sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the same 9 SLE manifestation consistently drove clustering (>900/1000 times) and 95% of patients consistently clustered together over 1000 simulations. None of the 195 SLE genes were associated with cluster membership. Figure 1: Clinical and Laboratory SLE Manifestation With Different Prevalences Between Patient Clusters . The number in each cell represents the prevalence of an SLE manifestation within cluster 1 and 2, respectively. “LN” stands for lupus nephritis. Statistics performed with a Fisher’s Exact Test, Bonferroni corrected P < 0.002. Conclusions In a large multiethnic cSLE cohort, data-driven methods identified 2 robust cSLE patient clusters. The cluster with more severe disease and younger onset had a greater proportion of patients of East Asian and South Asian ancestry compared to the cluster with milder disease. Simulation-based sensitivity analysis demonstrated that 95% of patients consistently clustered together and 9 SLE manifestation primarily determined these clusters. Future work elucidating the role of genetics in our clustering is needed.

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.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,313
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,195

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,035
Tête enseignante GPT0,312
Écart entre enseignants0,277 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle