Assessment of Patients with Takayasu Arteritis in Routine Practice with Indian Takayasu Clinical Activity Score
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the Indian Takayasu Clinical Activity Score (ITAS2010) in followup of Takayasu arteritis (TA). METHODS: ITAS2010 forms were filled in prospectively (n = 144). Clinical activity was assessed with physician's global assessment (PGA) and criteria defined by Kerr, et al. RESULTS: ITAS2010 was significantly higher in patients with active disease. Total agreement between ITAS2010 and PGA was 66.4%, and between ITAS2010 and Kerr, et al was 82.8%. During followup, 14 of 15 patients showing vascular progression with imaging were categorized as having inactive disease according to ITAS2010. CONCLUSION: ITAS2010 was discriminatory for activity during the followup, but the agreement between PGA and ITAS2010 was moderate. Future work should include the incorporation of advanced vascular imaging and demonstration of ITAS2010 as a scalable measure and not simply a dichotomous measure of activity/flare versus remission.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".