Comparison of Effect on Sicca Symptoms of Anticentromere Antibody–positive Sjögren Syndrome and Primary Sjögren Syndrome Alone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether positive anticentromere antibody (ACA) serology affects the severity of sicca symptoms in patients with primary Sjögren syndrome (pSS). METHODS: Evaluation to detect subjective and objective sicca symptoms included questionnaires, physical examination, and pathology. Cases of pSS were classified according to the 2002 American-European Consensus Group (AECG) criteria. All patients were evaluated for presence of anti-Ro, anti-La, and ACA serology. Patients with pSS were categorized into ACA+ SS and ACA-SS. The groups were compared for measures of severity of oral and ocular sicca. RESULTS: The pSS group had 446 patients, of whom 26 were ACA+ SS. Subjective ocular sicca measured 7.0 ± 2.4 (out of 10) in ACA+ SS and 6.4 ± 2.6 in ACA-SS (p = 0.197). Objective ocular sicca measured 3.2 mm ± 1.8 mm/5 min in ACA+ SS and 4.2 mm ± 4.4 mm/5 min in ACA-SS (p = 0.038). Subjective oral sicca measured 8.5 ± 1.4 in ACA+ SS and 6.7 ± 2.4 in ACA-SS (p < 0.001). Objective oral sicca measured 0.1 ml ± 0.2 ml/15 min in ACA+ SS and 0.4 ml ± 1.0 ml/15 min in ACA-SS (p < 0.001). Only 35% of ACA+ patients with SS were anti-Ro-positive or anti-La-positive compared with 77% of the ACA-patients with SS (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in minor salivary gland fibrosis or focus scores between ACA+ SS and ACA-patients with SS. CONCLUSION: ACA+ SS is associated with more severe objective ocular sicca and more severe subjective and objective oral sicca compared to ACA-SS. The majority of ACA+ patients with SS meet AECG criteria for pSS despite negative serology for anti-Ro/La antibodies.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".