246. VASCULITIS PATIENT JOURNEY: A SCOPING REVIEW OF PATIENT EXPERIENCES WITH VASCULITIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Optimal management of vasculitis needs to address disease aspects of significance to patients. Understanding the patients’ journey with vasculitis allows clinicians to identify patient goals for treatment. We aimed to review the existing literature regarding patient perceptions of vasculitis’ effect on four main domains of health: physical, psychological, social, and financial. Methods: A scoping review was performed using CINHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and other sources (smaller databases and grey literature). Inclusion criteria included all forms of primary vasculitis, adult patients (> 18 years old), and patient perspectives regarding at least one of the four identified health domains. Aggregates of patient experiences with vasculitis were categorized into one of the four health domains: physical, psychological, social, and financial. Results: 19 studies from 2220 total (2095 after duplicates removed) were included: 14 quantitative, 4 qualitative, and one mixed quantitative-qualitative Methods: Few articles covered more than one of the four health domains. Together, generalized themes emerged for each of the four domains. In relation to physical health, patients were most affected by fatigue. Psychologically, patients were most affected by anxiety and depression. Socially, patients experienced decreased social participation due to lifestyle changes associated with disease and social perceptions of vasculitis. Financially, vasculitis patients had decreased employment due to functional decline. Each of the four domains contributed to a decreased quality of life associated with vasculitis. Conclusion: Decreased quality of life in vasculitis is due to multiple factors across several health domains. Understanding what patients are most affected by in each domain allows physicians to tailor care to meet the needs of the patient. Understanding the patient’s journey will allow physicians to understand patient goals and to better support them in their recovery. Patients will also have an improved understanding of their journey and the most relevant health domains affected. Abstract 246 Figure 1. Disclosures: None
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".