Systemic lupus erythematosus phenotypes formed from machine learning with a specific focus on cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To phenotype SLE based on symptom burden (disease damage, system involvement and patient reported outcomes), with a specific focus on objective and subjective cognitive function. METHODS: SLE patients ages 18-65 years underwent objective cognitive assessment using the ACR Neuropsychological Battery (ACR-NB) and data were collected on demographic and clinical variables, disease burden/activity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), depression, anxiety, fatigue and perceived cognitive deficits. Similarity network fusion (SNF) was used to identify patient subtypes. Differences between the subtypes were evaluated using Kruskal-Wallis and χ2 tests. RESULTS: Of the 238 patients, 90% were female, with a mean age of 41 years (s.d. 12) and a disease duration of 14 years (s.d. 10) at the study visit. The SNF analysis defined two subtypes (A and B) with distinct patterns in objective and subjective cognitive function, disease burden/damage, HRQoL, anxiety and depression. Subtype A performed worst on all significantly different tests of objective cognitive function (P < 0.03) compared with subtype B. Subtype A also had greater levels of subjective cognitive function (P < 0.001), disease burden/damage (P < 0.04), HRQoL (P < 0.001) and psychiatric measures (P < 0.001) compared with subtype B. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the complexity of cognitive impairment (CI) in SLE and that individual, multifactorial phenotypes exist. Those with greater disease burden, from SLE-specific factors or other factors associated with chronic conditions, report poorer cognitive functioning and perform worse on objective cognitive measures. By exploring different ways of phenotyping SLE we may better define CI in SLE. Ultimately this will aid our understanding of personalized CI trajectories and identification of appropriate treatments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".