Primary Sjögren's syndrome in children and adolescents: are proposed diagnostic criteria applicable?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the proposed criteria for the diagnosis of primary Sjögren's syndrome (pSS) in childhood to the validated American-European Consensus Group (AECG) classification criteria for pSS in adults. METHODS: Charts of 7 children with pSS seen at British Columbia's Children's Hospital (BCCH) and data on 128 children identified through Medline in the English language literature between 1963 and 2003 were reviewed for pediatric and AECG criteria for pSS. The presence of > or = 4 criteria was required to satisfy the respective classification criteria. The expert clinical opinion of pediatric rheumatologists was considered the gold standard for diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 24/62 (39%) cases satisfied the AECG criteria; 47/62 (76%) satisfied the proposed pediatric criteria. Inclusion of recurrent parotitis increased the sensitivity of the pediatric clinical criteria. From the cases, 78/133 (59%) satisfied the pediatric oral symptom criteria; only 6/78 (8%) had xerostomia in the absence of recurrent parotitis. There was no reported case of recurrent conjunctivitis in the absence of keratoconjunctivitis sicca. We found 101/130 (78%) cases had at least one positive autoantibody test result [antinuclear antibodies (ANA), rheumatoid factor (RF), SSA, SSB]; 78/123 (63%) had autoantibodies to SSA or SSB. CONCLUSION: The AECG adult criteria for pSS should not be applied to children as the sensitivity is unacceptably low. The inclusion of recurrent parotitis increases the sensitivity of the pediatric criteria, and recurrent parotitis should alert the clinician to the possibility of pSS. The inclusion of recurrent conjunctivitis did not improve the sensitivity over the AECG ocular criteria. The addition of ANA and RF to the AECG criteria did not change the number of patients satisfying the criteria for pediatric pSS.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".