Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most rheumatic diseases, in adults or children, do not have objective clinical or laboratory measures that allow physicians to diagnose a specific disease with certainty. In order to overcome the clinical dilemma of a proper diagnosis, classification criteria have been proposed for several rheumatic diseases. Classification criteria are therefore an essential tool for clinical research since they allow comparison of patients with similar clinical and laboratory characteristics across studies. In the vasculitis research field several classification criteria have been proposed for the adult population, and more recently for children. These criteria have been derived through 2 major methodological approaches: consensus and consensus/data-driven. In brief, the consensus-based criteria are specifically derived through the combination of judgments from a group of experts in a particular field after thorough literature review and sometimes developed using consensus techniques such as the Delphi technique and nominal group technique1,2. To the consensus-based criteria we can ascribe the Chapel Hill International Consensus Conference3 that essentially provided proper nomenclature for systemic vasculitides, and the Childhood Vasculitis Working Group of the Paediatric Rheumatology European Society (PRES) for preliminary classification criteria of childhood vasculitis4. These criteria have their main strength in the panel of contributors who are usually very well recognized experts/experienced clinicians in that particular research/clinical field. The second approach of consensus/data-driven usually starts from consensus-based criteria and adds a formal statistical validation based on collected data in order to provide accuracy measures (classic methods), or other alternative methods such as the classification tree5. Only the classical approach is discussed here. With the classic approach, the accuracy measures that are considered include sensitivity (ability of a classification criterion to identify a patient as having the disease based on a gold standard; also called true-positive rate); specificity (ability of classification criteria … Address correspondence to Dr. Ruperto; E-mail: nicolaruperto{at}ospedale-gaslini.ge.it
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 | 0.011 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".