Connective Tissue Disease-associated Interstitial Lung Diseases (CTD-ILD) — Report from OMERACT CTD-ILD Working Group
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is common in connective tissue disease (CTD) and is the leading cause of mortality. Investigators have used certain outcome measures in randomized controlled trials (RCT) in CTD-ILD, but the lack of a systematically developed, CTD-specific index that captures all measures relevant and meaningful to patients with CTD-ILD has left a large and conspicuous gap in CTD-ILD research. METHODS: The CTD-ILD working group, under the aegis of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) initiative, has completed a consensus group exercise to reach harmony on core domains and items for inclusion in RCT in CTD-ILD. During the OMERACT 12 meeting, consensus was sought on domains and core items for inclusion in RCT. In addition, consensus was pursued on a definition of response in RCT. Consensus was defined as ≥ 75% agreement among the participants. RESULTS: OMERACT 12 participants endorsed the domains with minimal modifications. Clinically meaningful progression for CTD-ILD was proposed as ≥ 10% relative decline in forced vital capacity (FVC) or ≥ 5% to < 10% relative decline in FVC and ≥ 15% relative decline in DLCO. CONCLUSION: There is consensus on domains for inclusion in RCT in CTD-ILD and on a definition of clinically meaningful progression. Data-driven approaches to validate these results in different cohorts and RCT are needed.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it