MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196451815 · doi:10.1097/bor.0000000000000837

Polymyositis: does it really exist as a distinct clinical subset?

2021· review· en· W3196451815 on OpenAlexaff
Valérie Leclair, Antonella Notarnicola, Jiří Vencovský, Ingrid E. Lundberg

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Rheumatology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInflammatory Myopathies and Dermatomyositis
Canadian institutionsJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolymyositisMedicineMyositisAntisynthetase syndromePathologyMuscle weaknessAutoantibodyImmunologyInternal medicineAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize information on polymyositis; diagnosis, definitions, published data and opinions. RECENT FINDINGS: Polymyositis originally referred to inflammatory muscle diseases presenting with muscle weakness and inflammatory cell infiltrates on muscle tissue visible by microscopy. Over time and with improved technology to immunophenotype infiltrating inflammatory cells and characterize muscle fibres, the meaning of polymyositis changed and became more specific. There is ongoing controversy over the term polymyositis, with proponents for a strict definition based on histopathological and immunohistochemical features on muscle biopsies whereas others advocate for a broader clinical and histopathological phenotype. Over the past decades, the discovery of several myositis-specific autoantibodies together with distinct histopathological features have enabled the identification of new subsets previously labelled as polymyositis notably the antisynthetase syndrome and the immune-mediated necrotizing myopathies thus reducing the number of patients classified as polymyositis. SUMMARY: There are still a small number of patients among the idiopathic inflammatory myopathies that can be classified as polymyositis as discussed in this review but the entity is now considered relatively rare.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.354 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in RheumatologySame topicInflammatory Myopathies and DermatomyositisFrench-language works237,207