Antimelanoma Differentiation-associated Gene 5 Antibody: Expanding the Clinical Spectrum in North American Patients with Dermatomyositis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical features associated with the antimelanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 antibody (anti-MDA5) in US patients with clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis (CADM) and classic DM. METHODS: Patients with CADM were consecutively selected from the University of Pittsburgh Myositis Database from 1985 to 2013. CADM was defined by a typical DM rash without objective muscle weakness and no or minimal abnormalities of muscle enzymes, electromyography, or muscle biopsy. DM was defined by Bohan and Peter criteria and was 1:1 matched (sex and age ± 5 yrs) to patients with CADM. Anti-MDA5 autoAb levels were determined using ELISA. Clinical features were compared between CADM and DM and between MDA5-positive and MDA5-negative subjects, using chi-squared and/or Mann-Whitney U tests as appropriate. RESULTS: We identified 61 patients with CADM who were matched to 61 DM controls (female 62% vs 64%; mean age 44.8 yrs vs 48.2, p < 0.5). Anti-MDA5 frequency was the same in both cohorts (13.1%), and anti-MDA5 was significantly associated with a higher likelihood of cutaneous ulcers, digital tip ulcerations, and puffy fingers as well as interstitial lung disease (ILD). Most patients with ILD had rapidly progressive ILD (RPILD) leading to early death. Patients with CADM were more likely to have dysphagia, but there were no other clinical differences seen associated with CADM as compared to classic DM. CONCLUSION: Anti-MDA5 positivity had a similar frequency in US patients with CADM and DM and is associated with ILD, RPILD, cutaneous ulcers, digital tip ulceration, and poor survival.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".