ANA-negative Antitopoisomerase I Antibody Is Not Generally Accepted
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor: Recently, Tebo and colleagues suggested that low titer antitopoisomerase I antibody (anti-topo I) including antinuclear antibody (ANA)-negative through multiplex bead assay can be of clinical significance and indicative of the pathogenesis of pulmonary epithelial damage1. This suggestion deeply worries us because it may have resulted from a lack of understanding of the methodology. New sensitive methods have been applied to antiextractable nuclear antigen (anti-ENA) tests; however, their specificity has been low, making their original clinical significance unclear. In similar cases, we have previously pointed out issues related to anti-Sm and antiribosomal P2,3, and a reminder is necessary that the clinical significance of the anti-ENA test (including anti-topo I) was established by the double immunodiffusion method4. In the study by Tebo and colleagues1, the median … Address correspondence to Dr. T.Y. Kim, Department of Laboratory Medicine, College of Medicine, Hanyang University, 222-1 Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, 04763, Republic of Korea. E-mail: tykim{at}hanyang.ac.kr
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 | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
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".