Telangiectases in Scleroderma: A Potential Clinical Marker of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Clinical markers are needed to identify scleroderma patients at risk for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) since early therapy may improve survival. We investigated whether increased numbers of telangiectases in scleroderma associate with measures of pulmonary vascular disease. METHODS: One hundred forty-seven consecutive adult patients with scleroderma were enrolled in this cross-sectional study and scored for the presence of matted telangiectases on 11 body areas. Per body area, telangiectases were scored as 0 if none were present, 1 if there were fewer than 10 telangiectases, and 2 if 10 or more telangiectases were counted. Linear regression analysis was performed to assess the association between right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) and telangiectasia score, adjusted for age, race, smoking status, scleroderma subtype, disease duration, and autoantibody status. Logistic regression analysis was performed with PAH by right-heart catheterization (RHC) as the dependent variable. RESULTS: The mean telangiectasia score was 6.0 (SD 4.5, range 0-20). RVSP and telangiectasia score were positively correlated (r = 0.271, p = 0.001). The mean RVSP increased by 10.9 mm Hg for every 10-point increase in telangiectasia score (95% CI 3.6-18.3 mm Hg, p = 0.004), adjusted for potential confounders. The adjusted relative odds of PAH by RHC were 12.4 for patients with a 10-point increase in telangiectasia score (95% CI 1.78-85.9, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Increased numbers of telangiectases strongly associate with the presence of pulmonary vascular disease. Telangiectases may be a clinical marker of more widespread aberrant microvascular disease in scleroderma.
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".