The Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation provisional criteria for the evaluation of response to therapy in juvenile dermatomyositis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a provisional definition for the evaluation of response to therapy in juvenile dermatomyositis (DM) based on the Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation juvenile DM core set of variables. METHODS: Thirty-seven experienced pediatric rheumatologists from 27 countries achieved consensus on 128 difficult patient profiles as clinically improved or not improved using a stepwise approach (patient's rating, statistical analysis, definition selection). Using the physicians' consensus ratings as the "gold standard measure," chi-square, sensitivity, specificity, false-positive and-negative rates, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and kappa agreement for candidate definitions of improvement were calculated. Definitions with kappa values >0.8 were multiplied by the face validity score to select the top definitions. RESULTS: The top definition of improvement was at least 20% improvement from baseline in 3 of 6 core set variables with no more than 1 of the remaining worsening by more than 30%, which cannot be muscle strength. The second-highest scoring definition was at least 20% improvement from baseline in 3 of 6 core set variables with no more than 2 of the remaining worsening by more than 25%, which cannot be muscle strength (definition P1 selected by the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies group). The third is similar to the second with the maximum amount of worsening set to 30%. This indicates convergent validity of the process. CONCLUSION: We propose a provisional data-driven definition of improvement that reflects well the consensus rating of experienced clinicians, which incorporates clinically meaningful change in core set variables in a composite end point for the evaluation of global response to therapy in juvenile DM.
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 | 0.124 | 0.174 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".