Interstitial Lung Disease Associated with Anti-PM/Scl or Anti-Aminoacyl-tRNA Synthetase Autoantibodies: A Similar Condition?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare anti-PM/Scl autoantibody-associated interstitial lung disease (ILD) with anti-aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases (anti-ARS) autoantibody-associated ILD. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 21 patients with ILD from a department of respiratory medicine, including 9 with anti-PM/Scl autoantibodies (6 women, median age 55 yrs, followup 5.5 yrs) and 12 with anti-ARS autoantibodies (6 women, median age 59 yrs, followup 2.3 yrs). RESULTS: Pulmonary manifestations in patients with anti-PM/Scl autoantibody-associated ILD usually followed the extrapulmonary manifestations of the connective tissue disease (CTD) (7/9 cases). The predominant imaging features on initial high resolution computed tomography were ground-glass attenuation and reticular opacities, and mainly suggested nonspecific interstitial pneumonia in both groups. CTD was classified as dermatomyositis (DM; 2), undifferentiated CTD (2), cutaneous limited systemic sclerosis (2), rheumatoid arthritis (RA; 1), and overlap syndrome (1) in the anti-PM/Scl group; and polymyositis (4), undifferentiated CTD (5), DM (1), amyopathic DM (1), and RA (1) in the anti-ARS group. Frequencies of arthralgia, Raynaud phenomenon, cutaneous rash, and mechanic's hands were comparable in both groups. Myalgia or muscle weakness was present in 0/9 PM/Scl and 5/12 ARS patients (p < 0.05). More than 1 autoantibody was present in 11 patients. ILD worsened despite treatment in 4 patients with anti-PM/Scl autoantibodies and 2 with anti-ARS autoantibodies, and included 1 death. CONCLUSION: Anti-PM/Scl and anti-ARS antibodies are associated with similar clinical manifestations, with the exception only of more overt myositis in the latter, therefore challenging the clinical specificity of the antisynthetase syndrome.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".