Defining Low Disease Activity in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To define and identify a group of systemic lupus erythematosus patients with low disease activity (LDA) and to examine whether LDA is similar to patients in remission and different from a high disease activity group (HDA) in short-term outcomes. METHODS: The LDA group was defined as Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) <3, including only 1 clinical manifestation of rash, alopecia, mucosal ulcers, pleurisy, pericarditis, fever, thrombocytopenia, or leukopenia. The patients could be taking antimalarials. Remission was defined as no clinical manifestation from taking antimalarials alone, and the HDA group was defined as SLEDAI-2K >6. The time frame for inclusion in each group was at least 1 year. RESULTS: Of 620 patients with active disease who were seen between 1970 and 2015, 80 patients (12.9%) fulfilled the criteria for LDA, 191 (30.8%) for remission, and 349 (56.3%) for HDA. The LDA patients with and without positive serology results were similar at baseline and with prior disease characteristics. After 2 years of followup, the LDA and remission groups were similar in their adjusted mean SLEDAI-2K score, organ involvement, The Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index (SDI) score, mortality, and therapies. After 2 and 4 years of followup, the HDA group had a higher adjusted mean SLEDAI-2K score, more major organ involvement, a higher SDI score, higher mortality, and more therapy compared to the combined LDA/remission groups. CONCLUSION: LDA and remission groups had similar short-term outcomes, and both had better outcomes and prognosis than the HDA group. LDA may be used as an outcome measure in therapeutic trials or in treat-to-target regimens.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".