MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071923098 · doi:10.1097/md.0b013e31818ec711

Acute Viral Infections in Patients With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

2008· review· en· W2071923098 on OpenAlexaff
Manuel Ramos‐Casals, María José Cuadrado, Paula Alba, Giovanni Sanna, Pilar Brito‐Zerón, Alejandra Babini, Asunción Moreno, David D’Cruz, Munther A. Khamashta

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParvovirus B19 Infection Studies
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLupus erythematosusDermatologyImmunologyAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Few studies have evaluated the impact of viral infections on the daily management of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). We analyzed the etiology and clinical features of acute viral infections arising in patients with SLE and their influence on the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of SLE. Cases occurring within the last 5 years were selected from the databases of 3 large teaching hospitals. Acute viral infections were confirmed by the identification of specific antiviral IgM antibodies and subsequent seroconversion with detection of specific IgG antibodies. In autopsy studies, macroscopic findings suggestive of viral infection were confirmed by direct identification of the virus or viruses in tissue samples. We performed a MEDLINE search for additional cases reported between January 1985 and March 2008. We included 88 cases (23 from our clinics and 65 from the literature review) of acute viral infections in patients with SLE. Twenty-five patients were diagnosed with new-onset SLE (fulfillment of the 1997 SLE criteria) associated with infection by human parvovirus B19 (n = 15), cytomegalovirus (CMV; n = 6), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV; n = 3), and hepatitis A virus (n = 1). The remaining 63 cases of acute viral infections arose in patients already diagnosed with SLE: in 18 patients, symptoms related to infection mimicked a lupus flare, 36 patients, including 1 patient from the former group who presented with both conditions, presented organ-specific viral infections (mainly pneumonitis, colitis, retinitis, and hepatitis), and 10 patients presented a severe, multiorgan process similar to that described in catastrophic antiphospholipid syndrome-the final diagnosis was hemophagocytic syndrome in 5 cases and disseminated viral infection in 5. Twelve patients died due to infection caused by CMV (n = 5), herpes simplex virus (n = 4), EBV (n = 2), and varicella zoster virus (n = 1). Autopsies were performed in 9 patients and disclosed disseminated herpetic infection in 6 patients (caused by herpes simplex in 4 cases, varicella in 1, and CMV in 1) and hemophagocytic syndrome in 3. A higher frequency of renal failure (54% vs. 19%, p = 0.024), antiphospholipid syndrome (33% vs. 6%, p = 0.023), treatment with cyclophosphamide (82% vs. 37%, p = 0.008), and multisystemic involvement at presentation (58% vs. 8%, p < 0.001); and a lower frequency of antiviral therapy (18% vs. 76%, p < 0.001) were found in patients who died, compared with survivors. The most common viral infections in patients with SLE are parvovirus B19 (predominantly mimicking SLE presentation) and CMV (predominantly presenting in severely immunosuppressed patients). CMV infection may mimic a lupus flare or present with specific organ involvement such as gastrointestinal bleeding or pulmonary infiltrates. Other herpesviruses are common in immunosuppressed SLE patients and may produce a wide range of manifestations. Physicians should examine the pharynx, eyes, skin, and genitalia and should conduct serologic and molecular studies to improve early detection of viral infection in patients with SLE.

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)0.005
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations154
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicParvovirus B19 Infection StudiesFrench-language works237,207