Pulmonary function tests as outcomes for systemic sclerosis interstitial lung disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in systemic sclerosis (SSc). We performed a systematic review to characterise the use and validation of pulmonary function tests (PFTs) as surrogate markers for systemic sclerosis-associated interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD) progression. Five electronic databases were searched to identify all relevant studies. Included studies either used at least one PFT measure as a longitudinal outcome for SSc-ILD progression (i.e.outcome studies) and/or reported at least one classical measure of validity for the PFTs in SSc-ILD (i.e.validation studies). This systematic review included 169 outcome studies and 50 validation studies. Diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) was cumulatively the most commonly used outcome until 2010 when it was surpassed by forced vital capacity (FVC). FVC (% predicted) was the primary endpoint in 70.4% of studies, compared to 11.3% for % predictedDLCO. Only five studies specifically aimed to validate the PFTs: two concluded thatDLCOwas the best measure of SSc-ILD extent, while the others did not favour any PFT. These studies also showed respectable validity measures for total lung capacity (TLC). Despite the current preference for FVC, available evidence suggests thatDLCOand TLC should not yet be discounted as potential surrogate markers for SSc-ILD progression.
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 | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".