Serological abnormalities that predict progression to systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases in antinuclear antibody–positive individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We investigated the autoantibody (autoAb) profiles in ANA+ individuals lacking systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease (SARD) and early SARD patients to determine the key differences between these groups and identify factors that are associated with an increased risk of symptomatic progression within the next 2 years in ANA+ individuals. METHODS: Using custom antigen (Ag) microarrays, 144 IgM and IgG autoAbs were surveyed in 84 asymptomatic and 123 symptomatic (48 UCTD and 75 SARD patients) ANA+ individuals. AutoAbs were compared in ANA+ individuals lacking a SARD diagnosis with ≥2 years follow-up (n = 52), including all those who demonstrated progression (n = 14) during this period, with changes over time assessed in a representative subset. RESULTS: We show that ANA+ individuals have autoAb to many self-Ags that are not being captured by current screening techniques and very high levels of these autoAbs are predominantly restricted to early SARD patients, with SLE patients displaying reactivity to many more autoAgs than the other groups. In general, the symptoms that developed in progressors mirrored those seen in SARD patients with similar patterns of autoAbs. Only anti-Ro52 Abs were found to predict progression (positive predictive value 46%, negative predictive value 89%). Surprisingly, over 2 years of follow-up the levels of autoAbs remained remarkably stable regardless of whether individuals progressed or not. CONCLUSION: Our findings strongly argue that development of assays with an expanded set of auto-Ags and enhanced dynamic range would improve the diagnostic and prognostic ability of autoAb testing.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".