Prevalence of Non–Organ-Specific Autoantibodies in Patients with Pemphigus Vulgaris
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pemphigus vulgaris (PV) is a potentially life-threatening, organ-specific, autoimmune, blistering disease of the skin and mucous membranes. Although several reports suggest an association between pemphigus and other autoimmune connective tissue disorders, studies that measure non–organ-specific autoantibodies are lacking. Objective: To evaluate the prevalence of antinuclear antibodies (ANA), anti–double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibodies, and antibodies against extractable nuclear antigens (ENAs) in PV patients. Methods: Serum samples were obtained from 59 PV patients and 50 healthy controls. Indirect immunofluorescence assays containing human epithelial cell substrates (HEp-2) and Crithidia luciliae were used to detect ANA and anti-dsDNA antibodies, respectively. A multiplexed addressable laser bead immunoassay was employed to measure autoantibodies to: Smith (Sm), ribonucleoprotein (RNP), Sjögren syndrome B (SSB/La), Sjögren syndrome A (SSA/Ro), histidyl transfer ribonucleic acid synthetase (Jo-1), topoisomerase I (Scl-70), and ribosome-P (Ribo-P) antigens. Results: Positive ANAs were obtained in 22 of 59 (37.3%) PV patients compared with 4 of 50 (8.0%) healthy controls ( p ≤ .01). In both the patient and control populations, anti-dsDNA antibodies were absent. Antibodies against the ENAs were present in 1 of 59 (1.7%) PV patients compared with 0 of 50 (0%) controls. In the single ENA-positive PV patient, antibodies to SSB/La (1.7%) and SSA/Ro (1.7%) were detected. Conclusions: Non–organ-specific autoantibodies are prevalent in the PV population. As ANAs are detected in over one-third of PV patients, clinicians should screen for signs and symptoms of other connective tissue disease. Correlative clinical studies are warranted to determine the diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic significance of these findings.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".