Late-age Onset Systemic Sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although patients who develop systemic sclerosis (SSc) later in life (≥ 65 yrs) may express the entire clinical spectrum of disease, we hypothesize that patients with late-age onset SSc incur a different risk for specific organ manifestations of disease compared to those with early-age onset SSc. METHODS: In total, 2300 patients with SSc were evaluated between 1990 and 2009 and reviewed from a university-based scleroderma center cohort. Demographic profile, SSc subtype, autoantibody status, Medsger severity scores, pulmonary function tests, echocardiography, and right heart catheterization measures were compared between late-age onset vs younger-age onset patients with SSc. RESULTS: Overall, 2084 patients (91%) developed SSc prior to age 65, while 216 (9%) were ≥ 65 years. Late-age onset patients had a significantly higher proportion of anticentromere antibodies (42% vs 27%; p = 0.001) compared to early-age onset patients. Risk of pulmonary hypertension (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.00, 3.12), muscle weakness (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.30, 1.64), renal impairment (OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.98, 4.04), and cardiac disease (OR 2.69, 95% CI 1.92, 3.78) was greater among those with late-age onset SSc; although risk of digital ischemia (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.47, 0.86) was reduced. The cumulative incidence of pulmonary hypertension at 5 years was greater among those with late-age onset SSc (9%) compared to those with early-age onset SSc (2.7%; log-rank, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that older patients with SSc are at greater risk for pulmonary hypertension, renal impairment, cardiac disease, and muscle weakness. Awareness of the distinct risk for specific organ manifestations in SSc, in particular pulmonary hypertension, should guide the care of patients with SSc whose disease begins after age 65.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".