Disease features and outcomes among US lupus patients of Hispanic origin and their Mestizo counterpart in Latina America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) US Hispanic patients with a large Amerindian ancestral background have been found to have poor outcomes. Similar observations have been made in the mixed population of Latin America. We are now comparing and contrasting selected sociodemographic and clinical features and outcomes of lupus patients from these two groups. SLE US Hispanic patients (European and Amerindian ancestry) from the LUMINA cohort (Lupus in Minorities: Nature vs. Nurture) and Latin American Mestizo patients from the GLADEL cohort (Grupo LatinoAmericano De Estudio de Lupus (Latin American Group for the Study of Lupus)) constitute the study population. Only patients who fulfilled four of the 1997 ACR criteria were included. Diagnosis time was time to the fourth criterion. Demographic and clinical data from these patients were extracted. When the ascertainment method for a specific variable was different in both cohorts, this has been noted. All variables were then compared using descriptive statistical tests. Adjustment for disease duration was done when indicated using either a Poisson regression or logistic regression, as appropriate. Salient features for these two patient groups are presented in Table 1 . Some of the differences observed in terms of the socioeconomic features could be due to the different methods of ascertainment. Patients in both cohorts exhibited active disease, with renal involvement and damage being frequent, and overall damage accruing rapidly; however, the US Hispanic patients exhibited a higher mortality. These two patient groups were also of low SES. These data suggest that these two populations share an underlying genetic background which coupled with a poor SES places them at increased risk for severe lupus with unfavorable short, intermediate and long-term outcomes. The less favorable mortality experience of the US Hispanics deserves to be further examined.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".