MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

138. DIFFUSE ALVEOLAR HEMORRHAGE, PULMONARY NODULES AND INFILTRATES IN GRANULOMATOSIS POLYANGIITIS AND MICROSCOPIC POLYANGIITIS. A COHORT STUDY OF 736 PATIENTS

2019· article· en· W2935126565 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie Garner, Saara Rawn, Gerald Cox, Christian Pagnoux, David Cuthbertson, Simon Carette, Curry L. Koening, Carol A. Langford, Carol A. McAlear, Paul A. Monach, Larry W. Moreland, Philip Seo, Ulrich Specks, Antoine G. Sreih, Steven R. Ytterberg, Peter A. Merkel, Nader Khalidi

Bibliographic record

VenueLara D. Veeken · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Sclerosis and Related Diseases
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonSt. Joseph's HospitalMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGranulomatosis with polyangiitisDiffuse alveolar hemorrhageMicroscopic polyangiitisPathologyLungVasculitisInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The outcomes for patients with microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) and granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) who have pulmonary manifestation(s) are not known. Recent publications have shown that patients with pulmonary manifestations tend to have higher rates of relapse but the impact on morbidly and mortality is not known. This study aimed to determine 1) the frequency with which patients develop any of three pulmonary manifestations: pulmonary nodules (PN), diffuse alveolar hemorrhage (DAH), or pulmonary infiltrates; and 2) whether patients with multiple pulmonary manifestations have different rates of disease flares and/or mortality compared to patients with one pulmonary manifestation. Methods: Data were extracted from the Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium Longitudinal Study cohort beginning in 2006. Pulmonary manifestations were classified by site investigators and reported via a standard protocol. Mortality and flare rates, and predictors of morbidity/mortality were determined for each group of patients by lung manifestation and combination of manifestations. Results: Among 736 patients with MPA or GPA, 66.0% (n = 486) had at least one pulmonary manifestation(s) at any point during follow-up. Figure 1 gives a visual representation of the frequencies and overlap of PN, DAH, and pulmonary infiltrates. While PN were common at baseline (44.3%), only 4.1% of patients subsequently developed PN. At baseline 9.0% of patients had both PN and DAH. Among patients who initially had DAH and no other pulmonary manifestations (n = 73, 9.9%), PN developed in only 4 (0.5%). Of those patients who did not have DAH at presentation (n = 579, 78.7%), only 3.4% went on to develop DAH. Non-hemorrhagic infiltrates only subsequently developed in 3.4% (n = 25) of patients. The type of pulmonary involvement (PN versus DAH versus infiltrates or a combination of these) did not predict the number of flares per year or the number of deaths per 100 patient years. Conclusion: Pulmonary nodules, DAH, and infiltrates are common in MPA/GPA and more than one manifestation frequently occurs. In GPA and MPA, new pulmonary manifestations do not tend to develop over time after treated in initiated. Once remission is obtained, pulmonary manifestations at baseline do not confer increased risk of flare or mortality. Frequency of pulmonary nodules, diffuse alveolar hemorrhage, and pulmonary infiltrates among patients with pulmonary manifestations of granulomatosis with polyangiitis and microscopic polyangiitis Areas of intersection represent the number of patients whose clinical course included two or more pulmonary features. cANCA = cytoplasmic antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies, pANCA = perinuclear antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies, PR3 = proteinase 3 antibodies, MPO =myeloperoxidase antibodies. 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLara D. VeekenSame topicSystemic Sclerosis and Related DiseasesFrench-language works237,207