Anti-MDA5 autoantibodies associated with juvenile dermatomyositis constitute a distinct phenotype in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Myositis-specific autoantibodies have defined distinct phenotypes of patients with juvenile myositis (JIIM). We assessed the frequency and clinical significance of anti-melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 (MDA5) autoantibody-associated JIIM in a North American registry. METHODS: Retrospective examination of the characteristics of 35 JIIM patients with anti-MDA5 autoantibodies was performed, and differences from other myositis-specific autoantibody groups were evaluated. RESULTS: Anti-MDA5 autoantibodies were present in 35/453 (7.7%) of JIIM patients and associated with older age at diagnosis, and lower serum creatine kinase and aldolase levels. Patients with anti-MDA5 autoantibodies had more frequent weight loss, adenopathy, arthritis, interstitial lung disease (ILD), and less frequent falling compared with anti-transcriptional intermediary factor 1 (TIF1), anti-nuclear matrix protein 2 (NXP2) and myositis-specific autoantibody/myositis-associated autoantibody-negative patients. They had a different season of diagnosis and less frequent mechanic's hands and ILD compared with those with anti-synthetase autoantibodies. Anti-MDA5 patients received fewer medications compared with anti-TIF1, and corticosteroid treatment was shorter compared with anti-TIF1 and anti-nuclear matrix protein 2 autoantibody groups. The frequency of remission was higher in anti-MDA5 than anti-synthetase autoantibody-positive JIIM. In multivariable analyses, weight loss, arthritis and arthralgia were most strongly associated with anti-MDA5 autoantibody-positive JIIM. CONCLUSION: Anti-MDA5 JIIM is a distinct subset, with frequent arthritis, weight loss, adenopathy and less severe myositis, and is also associated with ILD. Anti-MDA5 is distinguished from anti-synthetase autoantibody-positive JIIM by less frequent ILD, lower creatine kinase levels and differing seasons of diagnosis. Anti-MDA5 has comparable outcomes, but with the ability to discontinue steroids more rapidly and less frequent flares compared with anti-TIF1 autoantibodies, and more frequent remission compared with anti-synthetase JIIM patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".