Practice‐based differences in paediatric DLE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The term ‘lupus’ refers to a range of related disorders. Discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE) is a form of lupus in the skin, which is rare in children. It can lead to disfiguring scarring. Some patients develop systemic lupus (SLE), a type of lupus that affects the whole body, which can lead to damage to multiple organs. Small studies have suggested that 25 to 30% of children with DLE develop SLE over time, but risk factors for this are not known. Early diagnosis and treatment of SLE are helpful. This study used a survey approach to compare practice patterns between two medical specialties, academic rheumatologists and dermatologists, in the United States and Canada, caring for children with DLE. The study aimed to identify areas of agreement but also practice‐based differences between groups. Consensus (agreement) occurred when 70% or more of both specialties agreed. The authors found consensus that certain laboratory studies should be checked for all children at diagnosis of DLE. Both groups agreed that the presence of “other auto‐antibodies besides ANA”, arthritis, or nephritis were high‐risk features for SLE that should increase screening for systemic disease. There were no other agreed‐upon risk factors for SLE, including those that have previously been shown in adults with DLE. Both groups agreed that first‐line systemic therapy (whole body treatment) for widespread DLE should be hydroxychloroquine. The authors could not agree on which medications to use for resistant skin disease. Overall, the study found some areas of agreement but many areas of practice‐based difference. More data in children with DLE is necessary to determine best practice approaches. The authors are completing a type of study called a retrospective cohort study that may help to fill these gaps.
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 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".