New Features of Disease After Diagnosis in 6 Forms of Systemic Vasculitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the occurrence of features of vasculitis that initially present after diagnosis in 6 types of primary vasculitis. METHODS: Standardized collection of data on 95 disease manifestations in 6 vasculitides, including granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (Churg-Strauss; EGPA), polyarteritis nodosa (PAN), giant cell arteritis (GCA), and Takayasu arteritis (TAK), was obtained within a set of multicenter longitudinal, observational cohorts. For each form of vasculitis, the frequency of disease-specific manifestations at diagnosis was compared to the cumulative frequency of each manifestation. The percentage of patients who initially developed severe manifestations after diagnosis, defined as organ- or life-threatening in the small and medium vessel vasculitides (GPA, MPA, EGPA, PAN) and as ischemic/vascular in the large vessel vasculitides (GCA, TAK), was reported. RESULTS: Out of 838 patients with vasculitis, 490 (59%) experienced ≥ 1 new disease manifestation after diagnosis. On average, patients with vasculitis experienced 1.3 new manifestations after diagnosis (GPA = 1.9, MPA = 1.2, EGPA = 1.5, PAN = 1.2, GCA = 0.7, and TAK = 1.0). New severe manifestations occurred after diagnosis in 224 (27%) out of 838 patients (GPA = 26%, MPA = 19%, EGPA = 21%, PAN = 23%, GCA = 24%, and TAK = 44%). Timing of onset of new manifestations was not significantly associated with disease duration. CONCLUSION: A majority of patients with vasculitis develop new disease features after diagnosis, including a substantial number of new, severe manifestations. Ongoing assessment of patients with established vasculitis should remain broad in scope.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".