HLA-B27 Prevalence in Arab Populations and Among Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis: Table 1.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate prevalence of HLA-B27 among general Arab populations and among patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and to review published data. METHODS: The prevalence of HLA-B27 was studied among 2579 unrelated healthy Jordanians, almost equally divided among Palestinian refugees and natives of Jordan, reflecting the general population of Jordan. The prevalence of HLA-B27 was also studied among 129 patients with AS, 70 from Jordan, and the remaining 59 from Qatar. HLA typing was performed by standard 2-stage micro-lymphocytotoxicity method. We also reviewed published English language studies of HLA-B27 in Arab patients with AS and general populations retrieved through Medline and cross-reference search. RESULTS: We observed that the general prevalence of HLA-B27 among Jordanians is 2.4%; while the reported prevalence ranges between 2% and 5% among major Arab populations. The prevalence of HLA-B27 among patients with AS is 71% in Jordan and 73% in Qatar, while the reported prevalence from pooled published data from various Arab populations is 64%. CONCLUSION: From these data one can conclude that HLA-B27 is present in about 2% to 5% among major Arab populations and that its prevalence in Arab patients with AS is closer to 70%.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".