Prolonged remission in systemic lupus erythematosus.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of prolonged remission in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) using strict criteria for remission and to define disease characteristics and prognosis of patients achieving this state. To also determine the frequency of remission utilizing less restrictive definitions, such as allowing shorter period of disease quiescence, persistence of serological activity, or treatment in the absence of clinical disease. METHODS: Patients registered in the Lupus Clinic database between 1970 and 1997 with visits no more than 18 months apart were identified. Prolonged remission was defined as a 5-year consecutive period of no disease activity (SLE disease activity index, SLEDAI = 0) and without treatment (corticosteroids, antimalarials, or immunosuppressants). Prolonged serologically active, clinically quiescent (SACQ) was defined as active serology (elevated anti-dsDNA by Farr assay or hypocomplementemia) but no clinical activity on SLEDAI and no treatment. RESULTS: Seven hundred and three patients fulfilled inclusion criteria. Of the 703 patients 46 (6.5%) achieved complete remission for at least 1 year, whereas only 12 patients (1.7%) had prolonged complete remission of at least 5 years on no treatment. Although the frequency of disease manifestations was similar to the patients not in remission, the 5-year remission group was distinguished by lower overall disease activity as measured by adjusted mean SLEDAI, lower prevalence of anti-DNA antibodies, and lower use of steroids and antimalarials. CONCLUSION: Prolonged complete remission in lupus is rare. Therefore with current therapies continued vigilance for disease recurrence is necessary.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".