Time to diagnosis in systemic sclerosis: Is sex a factor?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether sex plays a role in the time to diagnosis of systemic sclerosis (SSc). METHODS: In the Canadian Scleroderma Research Group registry, dates of onset of Raynaud's phenomenon, the first non-Raynaud's disease symptom, and diagnosis were recorded based on patient reports. Association between sex and time to diagnosis was assessed for the group as a whole and stratified based on extent of skin involvement, either limited or diffuse. RESULTS: Of the 408 patients studied (347 women, 61 men, 44% with diffuse cutaneous SSc), the time to diagnosis after the onset of Raynaud's phenomenon was significantly longer for women than men (log rank P = 0.001), but not significantly different after the onset of the first non-Raynaud's disease manifestation. In an analysis stratified by limited or diffuse status, the time to diagnosis from onset of Raynaud's phenomenon was also significantly longer for women than men with diffuse cutaneous SSc (log rank P = 0.008). A trend toward a longer period between onset of Raynaud's phenomenon and SSc diagnosis was observed in women compared with men with limited cutaneous SSc (median 4.6 years in women versus 2.1 years in men; P = 0.085), and there was no sex difference in time to diagnosis after the onset of the first non-Raynaud's disease manifestation. CONCLUSION: In SSc, the time to diagnosis is longer for women than men after the onset of Raynaud's phenomenon, suggesting that there may be possible biologic differences in the progression of disease or in the health care trajectories of men and women with early SSc.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".