Citrulline Dependence of Anti-Cyclic Citrullinated Peptide Antibodies in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus as a Marker of Deforming/Erosive Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) antibodies are a serological marker for rheumatoid arthritis (RA); up to 10%-15% of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are also positive. While anti-CCP in RA is citrulline-dependent, anti-CCP in some other diseases is citrulline-independent and reacts with both CCP and the unmodified (arginine-containing) cyclic arginine peptide (CAP). We investigated the citrulline dependence of anti-CCP and its significance in the arthritis of SLE. METHODS: IgG anti-CCP was compared by ELISA to anti-CAP in sera from patients with SLE (n = 335) and RA (n = 47) and healthy controls (n = 35). SLE patients were divided into 5 groups based on their joint involvement: subset I: deforming/erosive arthritis (n = 20); II: arthritis fulfilling (or likely fulfilling) American College of Rheumatology criteria for RA but without erosions (n = 18); III: joint swelling but not fulfilling RA criteria (n = 39); IV: arthritis without documented joint swelling (n = 194); and V: no arthritis (n = 58). RESULTS: Anti-CCP (> 1.7 units) was found in 68% (32/47) of patients with RA and 17% (55/329) of those with SLE. It was more common in SLE patients with deforming/erosive arthritis (38%). High anti-CCP (> 10 units) was found in RA (26%) and deforming/erosive SLE (12%). High anti-CCP/CAP ratios (> 2, indicating a selectivity to CCP) were found in 91% of anti-CCP-positive RA and 50% of anti-CCP-positive SLE patients with deforming/erosive arthritis. Patients from subset II did not have high anti-CCP/CAP. CONCLUSION: Citrulline dependence or high levels (> 10) of anti-CCP were common in SLE patients with deforming/erosive arthritis, while most anti-CCP in SLE patients was citrulline-independent. This may be useful in identifying a subset of SLE patients with high risk for development of deforming/erosive arthritis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".