Lost-to-follow-up study in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent of and reasons for lost-to-follow-up, as well as its impact on outcome studies in a cohort of lupus patients. METHODS: As of September 1991, 247 patients, in a cohort of 621 patients with SLE, being followed in a long-term prognosis study, had not been seen since 1 March, 1990 and were considered lost-to-follow-up. Patients were contacted and encouraged to return for an evaluation or to answer a questionnaire by telephone. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the lost-to-follow-up and non-lost-to-follow-up patients and the survival experience during the lost-to-follow-up period was compared with that when patients were not considered lost-to-follow-up. Estimated survival curves with and without the information gained through contacts with lost-to-follow-up patients were compared. RESULTS: Of the 247 patients, 29 have died, 66 returned for a full assessment, 84 completed a questionnaire and 68 (11%) were true lost-to-follow-up. The lost-to-follow-up patient group had 10% more Caucasians and 6% more males than the patients under regular follow-up. The estimated survival curves of the entire cohort with and without the new lost-to-follow-up data, calculated as of July 1992, were very similar. There was no evidence of a differential mortality rate during the period in which patients were lost-to-follow-up. Some suggestive evidence that the relative mortality rate comparing the rate during a period of lost-to-follow-up and during a period of active follow-up may depend on disease duration at the time of lost-to-follow-up was found. CONCLUSIONS: While it would be prudent to limit lost-to-follow-up as much as possible, especially for outcomes such as mortality which do not necessarily require a clinic visit, it does not appear that significant bias will be present in prospective studies based on our single clinic database. Since the retrieved 179 lost-to-follow-up patients did not affect survival studies it is likely that the 68 true lost-to-follow-up patients will also not have an impact on prognostic studies. Lupus (2000) 9, 363-367
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.011 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".