MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2404915591

Juvenile amyopathic dermatomyositis: results of a case finding descriptive survey.

2000· article· en· W2404915591 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie Plamondon, P. B. Dent

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInflammatory Myopathies and Dermatomyositis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJuvenile dermatomyositisMedicineMuscle biopsyRheumatologyDermatomyositisMyopathyPediatricsInternal medicineBiopsyPhysical therapyDermatologySurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To review the clinical features of juvenile amyopathic dermatomyositis (ADM) to define an appropriate approach to its diagnosis and management. METHODS: Based on a review of published adult and pediatric cases, a prevalidated, peer reviewed, 3 page questionnaire was sent to all members of the Pediatric Section of the American College of Rheumatology and American Society for Pediatric Dermatology. RESULTS: Thirty-nine questionnaires were submitted for analysis. Twelve cases were excluded due to abnormal test results. Only one case met all criteria. Although 26 cases were incompletely investigated or had inadequate followup, they were not excluded, as all completed tests were normal. Two patients with incomplete data developed calcinosis. Of 27 patients not positively excluded, 10 were treated systemically, with 5 achieving remission, while 11/17 untreated recovered spontaneously. At a mean followup of 32.8 months from disease onset none of the 27 patients has developed clinical myopathy. CONCLUSION: The classic skin changes of juvenile DM can occur in the absence of clinical muscle involvement. Physicians are not routinely performing electromyography, muscle biopsy, or magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of these patients. A significant proportion of patients with ADM will remit without systemic therapy. Optimum treatment needs to be determined through controlled trials.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.884

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicInflammatory Myopathies and DermatomyositisFrench-language works237,207