MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735806626 · doi:10.1002/acr.23317

Developing and Refining New Candidate Criteria for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Classification: An International Collaboration

2017· review· en· W2735806626 on OpenAlexafffund
Sara K. Tedeschi, Sindhu R. Johnson, Dimitrios T. Boumpas, David Daikh, Thomas Dörner, David Jayne, Diane L. Kamen, Kirsten Lerstrøm, Marta Mosca, Rosalind Ramsey‐Goldman, Corine Sinnette, David Wofsy, Josef S Smolen, Raymond P. Naden, Martin Aringer, Karen H. Costenbader

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis Care & Research · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchEuropean League Against RheumatismNational Institutes of HealthLupus Foundation of America
KeywordsRheumatismDelphiAnti-nuclear antibodyDelphi methodMedicineComputer scienceAutoantibodyArtificial intelligenceInternal medicineImmunologyAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To define candidate criteria within multiphase development of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification criteria, jointly supported by the American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism. Prior steps included item generation and reduction by Delphi exercise, further narrowed to 21 items in a nominal group technique exercise. Our objectives were to apply an evidence-based approach to the 21 candidate criteria, and to develop hierarchical organization of criteria within domains. METHODS: A literature review identified the sensitivity and specificity of the 21 candidate criteria. Data on the performance of antinuclear antibody (ANA) as an entry criterion and operating characteristics of the candidate criteria in early SLE patients were evaluated. Candidate criteria were hierarchically organized into clinical and immunologic domains, and definitions were refined in an iterative process. RESULTS: Based on the data, consensus was reached to use a positive ANA of ≥1:80 titer (HEp-2 cells immunofluorescence) as an entry criterion and to have 7 clinical and 3 immunologic domains, with hierarchical organization of criteria within domains. Definitions of the candidate criteria were specified. CONCLUSION: Using a data-driven process, consensus was reached on new, refined criteria definitions and organization based on operating characteristics. This work will be followed by a multicriteria decision analysis exercise to weight criteria and to identify a threshold score for classification on a continuous probability scale.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.291
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.221 · 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.

Study designOther design
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

Citations111
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthritis Care & ResearchSame topicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchFrench-language works237,207