2013 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Classification Criteria for Systemic Sclerosis Outperform the 1980 Criteria: Data From the Canadian Scleroderma Research Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to determine the sensitivity of the new 2013 classification criteria for systemic sclerosis (SSc; scleroderma) in an independent cohort of SSc subjects and to assess the contribution of individual items of the criteria to the overall sensitivity. METHODS: SSc subjects from the Canadian Scleroderma Research Group cohort were assessed. Sensitivity was determined in several subgroups of patients. In patients without the criterion of skin thickening proximal to the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joints, we recalculated sensitivity after removing the individual criterion. RESULTS: A total of 724 SSc patients were included. Most were women (86%), mean age was 55.8 years, mean disease duration was 10.9 years, and 59% had limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc). Overall, the sensitivity of the 2013 criteria was 98.3% compared to 88.3% for the 1980 criteria. This pattern was consistent among those with lcSSc (98.8% versus 85.6%), anticentromere antibodies (98.9% versus 79.8%), disease duration ≤3 years (98.7% versus 84.7%), and no skin involvement proximal to the MCP joints (97% versus 60%). In the latter subgroup, removing Raynaud's phenomenon and sclerodactyly from the criteria reduced the sensitivity to 77% and 79%, respectively. Removing both sclerodactyly and puffy fingers reduced the sensitivity to 62%. CONCLUSION: The 2013 SSc classification criteria classify more SSc patients than the 1980 criteria. The improvement in sensitivity is most striking in those with lcSSc, especially those without skin involvement proximal to the MCP joints. The addition of Raynaud's phenomenon and puffy fingers to the 2013 criteria accounts for important gains in sensitivity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".