MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2460943875 · doi:10.1097/bor.0000000000000325

Progress in understanding the diagnostic and pathogenic role of autoantibodies associated with systemic sclerosis

2016· review· en· W2460943875 on OpenAlexafffund
May Y. Choi, Marvin J. Fritzler

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Rheumatology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Sclerosis and Related Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersStrongMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineAutoantibodyMultiple sclerosisImmunologyIntensive care medicineAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: At the time of diagnosis, systemic sclerosis (SSc) is often well established with significant irreversible tissue and organ damage. Definitions of 'early SSc' have been proposed, which include the presence of SSc-associated autoantibodies. In addition, functional autoantibodies that are believed to be involved in SSc pathogenesis need to be considered. In this review, recent advances in the diagnostic utility and pathogenic role of autoantibodies in early SSc are summarized. Moreover, we propose a clinical care pathway illustrating how autoantibody testing along with key clinical features can be used to make an earlier diagnosis of SSc. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent evidence has helped to develop a clearer understanding of the natural history, early clinical features, and autoantibodies that are predictors of SSc. The role of functional autoantibodies is leading to innovative approaches to evidence-based interventions and therapies that are based on mechanisms of disease. SUMMARY: Despite substantial advances, the high morbidity and mortality that currently characterizes SSc can largely be attributed to a delay in diagnosis, gaps in our understanding of the role of autoantibodies in early disease, and limited effective therapeutic options. An early and accurate diagnosis of SSc and use of autoantibody testing embedded in evidence-based clinical care pathways will help improve SSc-associated clinical outcomes and healthcare expenditures.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score0.730

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations35
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in RheumatologySame topicSystemic Sclerosis and Related DiseasesFrench-language works237,207