MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2413629314 · doi:10.1177/0961203316644338

Toward new criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus—a standpoint

2016· review· en· W2413629314 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Aringer, Thomas Dörner, Nicolai Leuchten, Sindhu R. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueLupus · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRheumatismRheumatologyAnti-nuclear antibodyDiseaseSystemic lupus erythematosusIntensive care medicineSystemic lupusImmunologyDermatologyInternal medicineAutoantibodyAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While clearly different in their aims and means, classification and diagnosis both try to accurately label the disease patients are suffering from. For systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), this is complicated by the multi-organ nature of the disease and by our incomplete understanding of its pathophysiology. Hallmarks of SLE are the presence of antinuclear antibodies (ANA), and multiple immune-mediated organ symptoms that are largely independent. In an attempt to overcome limitations of the current sets of SLE classification criteria, a new four-phase approach is being developed, which is jointly supported by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). This review attempts to delineate the performance of the current sets of criteria, the reasons for the decision for classification, and not diagnostic, criteria, and to provide a background of the current approach taken.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations92
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLupusSame topicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchFrench-language works237,207