Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to clarify the clinical characteristics and prognosis of patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) associated with amyopathic dermatomyositis (ILD-ADM). The study consisted of 14 consecutive patients with ILD-ADM. Patients were classified into two categories, acute/subacute and chronic forms, according to the clinical presentation of ILD. The clinical features, responsiveness to therapy, and prognosis between the two forms were compared. Nine ILD-ADM patients were categorised as the acute/subacute form, and five as the chronic form. Arterial oxygen tension was significantly lower in the acute/subacute ILD than chronic ILD patients. On high-resolution computed tomography, ground-glass opacities were frequently found in the two forms, but consolidation was more common in acute/subacute ILD than chronic ILD. Bronchoalveolar lavage analysis showed higher numbers of total cells and lymphocytes in acute/subacute ILD than chronic ILD. Histologically, the most common finding was nonspecific interstitial pneumonia in the two forms, while diffuse alveolar damage was only found in acute/subacute ILD. Acute/subacute ILD was generally resistant to therapy, while chronic ILD responded well. Notably, the mortality of acute/subacute ILD was much higher than that of chronic ILD (67 versus 0%, respectively). In conclusion, interstitial lung disease associated with amyopathic dermatomyositis includes two different forms, the acute/subacute and chronic forms, with distinct prognoses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".