MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Health outcomes in pediatric rheumatic diseases

2004· review· en· W2017211032 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ciarán M. Duffy

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Rheumatology · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutoimmune and Inflammatory Disorders Research
Canadian institutionsMontreal Children's HospitalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineJuvenile dermatomyositisArthritisPolyarthritisJuvenileDiseaseJuvenile rheumatoid arthritisRheumatic diseasePediatricsPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Health outcomes in the pediatric rheumatic diseases have been a very active area of research in the past several years, with a significant number of published studies from the United States, Canada, and Europe. Although most studies have been in the area of juvenile idiopathic arthritis, there are increasing numbers of studies in juvenile dermatomyositis and juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus. RECENT FINDINGS: These studies suggest that although there has been an improvement in overall outcomes, active disease persists in significant proportions of individuals into adulthood, causing damage and disability. In juvenile idiopathic arthritis, this is particularly so for patients with systemic arthritis and polyarthritis with rheumatoid factor positivity who overall appear to have a poor prognosis. SUMMARY: With the current approach to treatment of all these diseases being more aggressive, one anticipates an improvement in these outcomes in the future. Better longitudinal outcome studies with larger inception cohorts of new-onset disease are required to ascertain whether this prediction can be upheld. Such studies are now ongoing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.352 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in RheumatologySame topicAutoimmune and Inflammatory Disorders ResearchFrench-language works237,207