A Hot Spot for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, but Not for Psoriatic Arthritis, Identified by Spatial Analysis Suggests an Interaction Between Ethnicity and Place of Residence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the spatial distribution of incident cases of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) using geographic information systems (GIS). METHODS: Spatial analyses were carried out on 890 SLE patients and 541 psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients (controls). Age- and sex-adjusted rates for SLE/PsA for each census tract were calculated using denominator population values from the Canadian census. Spatial variations in relative risk were estimated by modeling risk as the product of a time effect, an age effect, and a spatially autocorrelated risk surface to identify hot spots. Patients within the detected hot spot were compared to those outside the hot spot to identify explanatory factors. RESULTS: SLE patients were predominantly female (87.75%) and the incidence rate was highest among those 15-19 years of age (2.4 cases/100,000 person-years). In an SLE hot spot containing 59 patients, 100% of the patients were female and 49.1% (n = 29) were Caucasian, while outside of the hot spot, 86.9% (n = 722) of the patients were female and 68.4% (n = 568) were Caucasian. The proportion of cases of Chinese ethnicity was significantly greater within the hot spot. An interaction was found between Chinese ethnicity and residence within the hot spot, with the risk of SLE to the Chinese population found to be twice the risk to the non-Chinese population. CONCLUSION: GIS was used to map SLE cases and a hot spot was identified after adjustment for age and sex. Ethnicity by itself did not confer an increased risk of SLE, but the interaction of ethnicity with location of residence significantly increased the risk of SLE.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".