Clinicohistological and immunopathological features of patients with cutaneous lupus erythematosus at tertiary dermatology centre in Malaysia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) is a chronic, autoimmune skin disease with a wide spectrum of clinical presentations in different populations. AIM: To study the clinicohistological and immunological features of CLE in a multiethnic population and to identify the predictive factors of disease severity based on the Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index (CLASI). METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of CLE conducted from March 2019 to February 2020. RESULTS: In total, 111 patients were recruited with a female/male ratio of 4.9 : 1. Acute CLE contributed 47.7%, followed by chronic CLE at 46.9% and subacute CLE at 5.4%. A large majority (84%) of patients had systemic lupus erythematosus. Of patients with chronic CLE, about 67.3% developed systemic involvement. Antinuclear antibody (ANA) was detected in 90.0%. Skin biopsy was taken from 42 patients and showed perivascular lymphocytic infiltration (95.2%), epidermal atrophy (47.6%) and hydropic degeneration of the basal layer (47.6%). Immunoglobulin deposition at the dermoepidermal junction was seen in > 40% of patients, predominantly in a granular pattern. Mean CLASI Total was 6.44 ± 7.70, while CLASI Activity (CLASI-A) was 2.75 ± 4.10 and CLASI Damage (CLASI-D) was 3.71 ± 4.76. Involved body surface area (BSA) was found to be an independent predictive factor for CLASI-A (OR = 1.34, P < 0.02). For CLASI-D, positive predictive factors were involved BSA (OR = 4.14, P < 0.001), discoid lupus erythematosus subtype (OR = 13.10, P = 0.001), cutaneous vascular disease (OR = 26.59; P = 0.014), scalp involvement (OR = 8.7, P < 0.01) and hypocomplementaemia (OR = 5.71, P < 0.5). Mean Dermatology Life Quality Index was 5.91 ± 5.34 and correlated significantly with disease severity. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a high percentage of patients with CLE with systemic manifestations and positive ANA result. More aggressive treatment of patients with positive predictive factors for severe disease combined with significant clinical activity may be warranted.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".