Comparisons of Guidelines and Recommendations on Managing Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody–Associated Vasculitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies-associated vasculitis (AAV) is associated with high morbidity or mortality, especially if not promptly diagnosed and treated. Many inroads have been made in the understanding of the pathophysiology that leads to exploration of novel therapies. Randomized controlled trials over the last 2 decades have better delineated and expanded therapeutic options and set the stage for an evidence-based approach. Since 2014, 4 scientific societies have systematically reviewed the existing data and have formulated evidence-based recommendations for the management of AAV. These recommendations cover diagnosis, remission induction and maintenance treatment, and prevention of long-term complications. This review is a comparative analysis of the recently published recommendations of the European League Against Rheumatism/European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association, the British Society of Rheumatology, the Canadian Vasculitis Research Network, and the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology, and aims to determine common ground among them and highlights the differences among the recommendations.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".