SLEDAI-2K 10 days versus SLEDAI-2K 30 days in a longitudinal evaluation
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
The objective of the study was to evaluate SLEDAI-2K 30 days over time and to compare with the original SLEDAI-2K 10 days. Forty-one patients seen at The University of Toronto Lupus Clinic were followed at monthly intervals for 12 months. The SLEDAI-2K score was completed twice, once for a 10-day window and again for a 30-day window using the same definitions for the descriptors. Four hundred and nineteen patient-visits in 41 patients were recorded for both SLEDAI-2K for a 10-day and a 30-day window. One hundred and fifty-one patient-visits had a SLEDAI-2K activity score of 0 and 268 patient-visits had varying levels of disease activity in the range 1-15. In all but one patient-visit there was an agreement between the SLEDAI-2K 10 days and 30 days. SLEDAI-2K 30 days scores were concordant with SLEDAI-2K 10 days scores, both in patients in remission and in patients with a spectrum of disease activity levels followed monthly over 1 year. SLEDAI-2K 30 days was validated against SLEDAI-2K 10 days in a longitudinal evaluation over 1 year. We recommend the use of SLEDAI-2K 30 days in clinical studies and clinical trials.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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