Significance of eosinophilia in granulomatosis with polyangiitis: data from the French Vasculitis Study Group Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe disease presentation and long-term outcome of granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) patients according to blood eosinophils count (Eos) at vasculitis diagnosis. METHODS: Data from newly diagnosed GPA patients registered in the French Vasculitis Study Group database with available eosinophil count at diagnosis were reviewed. Disease characteristics, rate and type of relapses, and overall survival were analysed according to Eos, categorized as normal (<500/mm3), mild-to-moderate hypereosinophilia (HE) (between 500 and 1500/mm3) and severe HE (>1500/mm3). RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty-four patients were included. At diagnosis, 90 (25.4%) patients had HE ≥500/mm3; they were more likely male (73% vs 56%, P = 0.006) and had more frequent cutaneous manifestations (49% vs 33%, P = 0.01), peripheral neuropathy (32% vs 17%, P = 0.004) and higher BVAS (21 vs 18, P = 0.01), compared with those with Eos <500/mm3. Patients with severe HE (n = 28; median Eos 2355, range 1500-9114) had more frequent renal function worsening at presentation (P = 0.008). After a median follow-up of 3.95 (interquartile range 1.95-6.76) years, no difference was found in overall relapse rates according to baseline Eos, but those with HE experienced more neurological (P = 0.013) and skin (P = 0.024) relapses and had more frequently peripheral neuropathy as damage at last follow-up (P = 0.02). Overall survival was not significantly different in patients with normal Eos or HE at diagnosis. (P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Blood HE at diagnosis, observed in about one-quarter of GPA patients, identifies a subgroup of patients with a more severe disease and higher rate of skin and neurological involvement both at presentation and during follow-up.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".