The First International Consensus on Mucous Membrane Pemphigoid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop consensus-based recommendations for streamlining medical communication among various health care professionals, to improve accuracy of diagnosis and treatment, and to facilitate future investigations for mucous membrane pemphigoid. PARTICIPANTS: Because of the highly specific nature of this group of diseases, the 26 invited participants included either international scholars in the field of mucous membrane pemphigoid or experts in cutaneous pharmacology representing the 3 medical disciplines ophthalmology, oral medicine, and dermatology. EVIDENCE: The first author (L.S.C.) conducted a literature search. Based on the information obtained, international experts who had contributed to the literature in the clinical care, diagnosis, and laboratory investigation for mucous membrane pemphigoid were invited to participate in a consensus meeting aimed at developing a consensus statement. CONSENSUS PROCESS: A consensus meeting was convened and conducted on May 10, 1999, in Chicago, Ill, to discuss the relevant issues. The first author drafted the statement based on the consensus developed at the meeting and the participants' written comments. The draft was submitted to all participants for 3 separate rounds of review, and disagreements were reconciled based on literature evidence. The third and final statement incorporated all relevant evidence obtained in the literature search and the consensus developed by the participants. The final statement was approved and endorsed by all 26 participants. CONCLUSIONS: Specific consensus-based recommendations were made regarding the definition, diagnostic criteria, pathogenic factors, medical treatment, and prognostic indicators for mucous membrane pemphigoid. A system of standard reporting for these patients was proposed to facilitate a uniform data collection.
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 | 0.118 | 0.152 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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".