Lupus myocarditis: a single center experience and a comparative analysis of observational cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Lupus myocarditis (LM) is reported in 3-9% of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) but limited evidence exists regarding optimal treatment and prognosis. This study aims to describe LM in a defined lupus cohort as compared with the existing literature. Patients and methods Patients with LM were identified from the University of Toronto Lupus Clinic database. Diagnosis was based on clinical manifestations and electrocardiographic, imaging, and biochemical criteria. Demographic, clinical, diagnostic and therapeutic variables and outcomes were collected in a standardized data retrieval form. A literature review was performed to identify cohort studies reporting on LM treatment and outcome. A comparative analysis was conducted between our patients and the combined cohort of the existing studies. Results Thirty patients were diagnosed with LM (prevalence 1.6%) and compared with a cumulative cohort of 117 patients from five distinct studies. No significant differences were found regarding the age at diagnosis (32.6 ± 13.4 years) and SLE duration (2.5 years median). Concomitant lupus activity from other organ systems was observed in 97% of the patients. Chest pain was more frequently reported in our cohort whereas dyspnea was more prominent in the other studies. Diagnostic criteria were similar across studies. Therapeutic approach was comparable and consisted of glucocorticosteroids (96.6%) and immunosuppressives (70%). Mortality was approximately 20% whereas another 20% of the patients achieved partial and 60% complete recovery. Conclusions LM usually occurs early in the disease course and in the context of generalized lupus activity. Despite aggressive therapy, approximately 40% of the patients died or had residual heart damage.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".