Nailfold Capillaroscopy in Systemic Sclerosis Patients with and without Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systemic sclerosis (SSc)-related pulmonary arterial hypertension (SSc-PAH) is a leading cause of mortality in SSc. The extent of peripheral microvasculopathy assessed through nailfold capillaroscopy might correlate with the presence of PAH in SSc patients. We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science databases and performed a random effects meta-analysis of observational studies comparing nailfold capillaroscopic alterations in SSc-PAH versus SSc-noPAH patients. Weighted mean differences (WMD) with the corresponding confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using a modified Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Seven studies with 101 SSc-PAH and 277 SSc-noPAH participants were included. Capillary density was marginally reduced in the SSc-PAH group (WMD: −1.0, 95% CI: −2.0 to 0.0, I2 = 86%). This effect was strengthened once PAH diagnosis was confirmed by right heart catheterization (WMD: −1.2, 95% CI: −2.3 to −0.1, I2 = 85%). An increase in capillary loop width was observed in SSc-PAH compared to SSc-noPAH patients (WMD: 10.9, 95% CI: 2.5 to 19.4, I2 = 78%). Furthermore, SSc-PAH patients had a 7.3 times higher likelihood of active or late scleroderma pattern (95% CI: 3.0 to 18.0, I2 = 4%). SSc-PAH patients presented with worse nailfold capillaroscopic findings compared to SSc-noPAH 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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".