Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (Churg–Strauss) (EGPA) Consensus Task Force recommendations for evaluation and management
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop disease-specific recommendations for the diagnosis and management of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (Churg-Strauss syndrome) (EGPA). METHODS: The EGPA Consensus Task Force experts comprised 8 pulmonologists, 6 internists, 4 rheumatologists, 3 nephrologists, 1 pathologist and 1 allergist from 5 European countries and the USA. Using a modified Delphi process, a list of 40 questions was elaborated by 2 members and sent to all participants prior to the meeting. Concurrently, an extensive literature search was undertaken with publications assigned with a level of evidence according to accepted criteria. Drafts of the recommendations were circulated for review to all members until final consensus was reached. RESULTS: Twenty-two recommendations concerning the diagnosis, initial evaluation, treatment and monitoring of EGPA patients were established. The relevant published information on EGPA, antineutrophil-cytoplasm antibody-associated vasculitides, hypereosinophilic syndromes and eosinophilic asthma supporting these recommendations was also reviewed. DISCUSSION: These recommendations aim to give physicians tools for effective and individual management of EGPA patients, and to provide guidance for further targeted research.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it