Clinical Features and Prognosis of Late-onset Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Results from the 1000 Faces of Lupus Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There is controversy whether older-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is associated with a different, more benign disease course than in younger-onset SLE. Our objective was to characterize the clinical features and prognosis of late-onset SLE in a large, multicenter cohort. METHODS: We studied adult-onset lupus in the 1000 Canadian Faces of Lupus cohort (n = 1528) of whom 10.5% had onset at age > or = 50 years versus a control group with onset at < 50 years. RESULTS: Disease duration was different in early- and late-onset groups (15 yrs in early vs 9.3 yrs in late; p < 0.001). Caucasians were represented more in the later-onset SLE group (55.6% vs 74.5%), while Asians and Blacks were more prevalent in the younger group. Younger-onset SLE subjects fulfilled more American College of Rheumatology criteria for SLE (< 50 yrs: 5.98 +/- 1.68; > or = 50 yrs: 5.24 +/- 1.44; p < 0.0001). Despite an equal prevalence of anti-dsDNA, the younger-onset group more often had positive anti-Smith autoantibody, ribonucleoprotein, and hypocomplementemia, and more nephritis, rash, and cytopenias than the older-onset group. However, disease activity and damage accrual were higher in the older-onset group. The older patients received less prednisone and immunosuppressives (current and ever-use). As expected, comorbidity was higher in the older-onset SLE group. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that older age-onset SLE is not benign. There may be an interaction between lupus and age in which, although there is less lupus nephritis in the elderly, more disease activity and damage are present.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".