LupusQoL-US Benchmarks for US Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The LupusQoL-US instrument was recently validated in the US. We studied the benchmarks for a US patient cohort with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and relevant demographic and disease correlates. METHODS: LupusQoL-US was administered to 185 patients with SLE. Demographic data (age, sex, ethnicity, marital status) and disease features (duration, disease activity and damage) were assessed simultaneously. Descriptive statistics were obtained. LupusQoL-US domain scores were calculated, and compared by sex, ethnicity, and marital status using nonparametric tests. Correlation between LupusQoL-US domains and age, disease duration, disease activity, and disease damage were obtained. RESULTS: Mean age of patients was 42.2 +/- 14.5 years; 94% of subjects were women. African American patients comprised 60% of the study cohort. The most affected domains were Fatigue and Physical Health. The least affected was Intimate Relationships. Age correlated with Physical Health, Pain, and Body Image (r = 0.15-0.18). Differences were observed based on sex and marital status, but not by ethnicity; there the LupusQoL-US correlated inversely with disease activity (r = -0.001 to -0.36) and damage (r = -0.003 to -0.40). CONCLUSION: All domains of the LupusQoL-US based health related quality of life (HRQOL) were affected adversely. HRQOL varied by age, sex, and marital status in our SLE cohort.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".