P1_164 Assessing Canadian Practice Patterns Regarding Idiopathic Aortitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Idiopathic Aortitis (IA) and its subset, Isolated Aortitis (IsA), are presently poorly defined entities. The purpose of this study is to determine the current practice of Canadian rheumatologists with respect to these conditions. Methods: An online survey was administered to members of Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA) using FluidSurveys (www.fluidsurveys.com) in June 2016. The survey was developed by the investigators in consultation with core members of Canadian Vasculitis Network (CanVasc). Results: Sixty eight of the 420 (16%) members of CRA took the survey and 60/68 (88%) completed it. Twelve participants (19%) were core members of CanVasc, 44 (69%) were academic and 20 (31%) were community physicians. Fifteen participants (23%) had never seen a patient with IA; out of 47 respondents who saw at least one IA patient, 37 (79%) saw 0-1 patient per year, 9 (19%) saw 2-5, and one saw 6-10. Twelve (26%) participants reported making a distinction between IA and IsA; 9/12 (75%) considered exclusion of radiographic abnormalities in aortic branch vessels to be important for the definition of IsA. Majority of respondents performed thorough clinical, biochemical, and radiographic assessment of their patients. Still, only 42% consistently excluded tuberculosis, 78% consistently tested for syphilis, and 38% performed full imaging of chest and abdominal aortic branches. Great variability exists with respect to managing of these conditions. When faced with an asymptomatic patient with normal inflammatory markers, participants were more likely to give corticosteroids to patients with branch vessel abnormalities (61% and 26% for aortitis diagnosed on pathology and imaging, respectively) than when disease was localized to aorta (23%-26%). The greatest variability was seen for localized aortitis where the involved area was completely surgically removed, with18% of respondents always using corticosteroids, 21% did sometimes and 34% never. More than 70% of participants monitor patients with IA every three months in the first 2 years of disease. Thirty-six of 37 participants (97%) felt that development of recommendations for the management of patients with IA would be beneficial.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".