A proposal of criteria for the classification of systemic sclerosis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sensitive and specific criteria for the classification of systemic sclerosis are required by clinicians and investigators to achieve higher quality clinical studies and approaches to therapy. A clinical study of systemic sclerosis patients in Europe and Canada led to a set of criteria that achieve high sensitivity and specificity. MATERIAL/METHODS: Both clinical and laboratory investigations of patients with systemic sclerosis, related conditions and diseases with clinical features that can be mistaken as part of the systemic sclerosis spectrum were undertaken. Laboratory investigations included the detection of autoantibodies to centromere proteins, Scl-70 (topoisomerase I), and fibrillarin (U3-RNP). RESULTS: Based on the investigation of 269 systemic sclerosis patients and 720 patients presenting with related and confounding conditions, the following set of criteria for the classification of systemic sclerosis was proposed: 1) autoantibodies to: centromere proteins, Scl-70 (topo I), fibrillarin; 2) bibasilar pulmonary fibrosis; 3) contractures of the digital joints or prayer sign; 4) dermal thickening proximal to the wrists; 5) calcinosis cutis; 6) Raynaud's phenomenon; 7) esophageal distal hypomotility or reflux-esophagitis; 8) sclerodactyly or non-pitting digital edema; 9) teleangiectasias. The classification of definite SSc requires at least three of the above criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Criteria for the classification of systemic sclerosis have been proposed. Preliminary testing has defined the sensitivity and specificity of these criteria as high as 99% and 100%, respectively. Testing and validation of the proposed criteria by other clinical centers is required.
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 | 0.027 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".