Comparison of Phenotype and Outcome in Microscopic Polyangiitis Between Europe and Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There are differences between Europe and Japan in the incidence and antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) serotype of patients with microscopic polyangiitis (MPA). However, differences in phenotype or outcome have not been explored. We aimed to identify differences in phenotype and outcome of MPA between Europe and Japan. METHODS: Sequential cohorts of patients with MPA and renal limited vasculitis were collected from European and Japanese centers (n = 147 and n = 312, respectively). Trial databases from the European Vasculitis Society and the Japanese patients with Myeloperoxidase (MPO)-ANCA-Associated Vasculitis (JMAAV) trial were studied (n = 254 and n = 48, respectively). We evaluated baseline characteristics including ANCA status and organ involvement, treatment, survival, and renal survival. Differences in survival and renal survival were studied using multivariate analysis. RESULTS: The non-trial cohorts showed patients with MPA in Japan had a higher age at onset, more frequent MPO-ANCA positivity, lower serum creatinine, and more frequent interstitial pneumonitis than those in Europe (all p < 0.01). Comparisons between the trial databases demonstrated similar results. Cumulative patient survival and renal survival rates were not different between Europe and Japan (p = 0.71 and p = 0.38, respectively). Multivariate analysis identified age at onset, serum creatinine, gastrointestinal, and respiratory involvement as factors with higher risk of death. For endstage renal failure, serum creatinine and use of plasma exchange were identified as factors with higher risk, and immunosuppressant use as lower risk factors. CONCLUSION: Phenotypes in patients with MPA were different between Europe and Japan. However, the outcomes of patient survival and renal survival were similar.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".