Disease evolution in late-onset and early-onset systemic lupus erythematosus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The objective of this study was to compare clinical features, disease activity, and outcome in late-onset versus early-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) over 5 years of follow up Method Patients with SLE since 1970 were followed prospectively according to standard protocol and tracked on a computerized database. Patients entering the cohort within one year of diagnosis constitute the inception cohort. Patients with late-onset (age at diagnosis ≥50) disease were identified and matched 1:2 based on gender and first clinic visit (±5) years with patients with early-onset disease (age at diagnosis 18-40 years). Results A total of 86 patients with late-onset disease (84.9% female, 81.4% Caucasian, mean age at SLE diagnosis ± SD 58.05 ± 7.30) and 169 patients with early-onset disease (86.4% female, 71% Caucasian, mean age at SLE diagnosis ± SD 27.80 ± 5.90) were identified. At enrollment, late-onset SLE patients had a lower total number of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, with less renal and neurologic manifestations. Mean SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) scores were lower in late-onset SLE, especially renal features and anti-dsDNA positivity. Over 5 years, mean SLEDAI-2K scores decreased in both groups, while mean Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/ACR Damage Index (SDI) scores increased more significantly in the late-onset group; they developed more cardiovascular, renal, and ocular damage, and had higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors. Conclusion Although the late-onset SLE group had a milder presentation and less active disease, with the evolution of disease, they developed more organ damage likely as a consequence of cardiovascular risk factors and aging.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".