Systematic Analysis of the Literature in Search of Defining Systemic Sclerosis Subsets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a multisystem disease with heterogeneity in presentation and prognosis.An international collaboration to develop new SSc subset criteria is underway. Our objectives were to identify systems of SSc subset classification and synthesize novel concepts to inform development of new criteria. METHODS: Medline, Cochrane MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched from their inceptions to December 2019 for studies related to SSc subclassification, limited to humans and without language or sample size restrictions. RESULTS: Of 5686 citations, 102 studies reported original data on SSc subsets. Subset classification systems relied on extent of skin involvement and/or SSc-specific autoantibodies (n = 61), nailfold capillary patterns (n = 29), and molecular, genomic, and cellular patterns (n = 12). While some systems of subset classification confer prognostic value for clinical phenotype, severity, and mortality, only subsetting by gene expression signatures in tissue samples has been associated with response to therapy. CONCLUSION: Subsetting on extent of skin involvement remains important. Novel disease attributes including SSc-specific autoantibodies, nailfold capillary patterns, and tissue gene expression signatures have been proposed as innovative means of SSc subsetting.
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 | 0.012 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.052 | 0.048 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".