Systemic Sclerosis Sine Scleroderma: A Multicenter Study of 1417 Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical and serological features of systemic sclerosis sine scleroderma (ssSSc) in a multicentered SSc cohort. METHODS: Data from 1417 subjects in the Canadian Scleroderma Research Group registry were extracted to identify subjects with ssSSc, defined as SSc diagnosed by an expert rheumatologist, but without any sclerodactyly or skin involvement prior to baseline study visit or during followup. Clinical and serological features of ssSSc subjects were compared to limited (lcSSc) and diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc) subjects. RESULTS: At the first registry visit, only 57 subjects (4.0%) were identified as having ssSSc. Of these, 30 (2.1%) were reclassified as lcSSc within 1.9 years. Thus, only 27 ssSSc subjects (1.9%) remained, with mean followup of 2.4 years. Clinical profiles of ssSSc were generally similar or milder compared to lcSSc, and milder than dcSSc, including rates of interstitial lung disease (25.9% ssSSc, 25.4% lcSSc, 40.3% dcSSc). Patients with ssSSc had serological profiles similar to those with lcSSc, including high rates of anticentromere antibodies (50.0% ssSSc, 47.5% lcSSc, 12.1% dcSSc), and low rates of antitopoisomerase I (16.7% ssSSc, 7.0% lcSSc, 21.8% dcSSc) and anti-RNA polymerase III (0 ssSSc, 11.1% lcSSc, 34.9% dcSSc). CONCLUSION: The condition ssSSc is rare and resembles lcSSc. These observations suggest that ssSSc is most likely a forme fruste of lcSSc, and that the absence of skin involvement may in part be related to misclassification arising from early or subtle skin involvement. There is little evidence to consider ssSSc as a distinct clinical or serological subset of 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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".