Antibody predictors of mortality and lung function trends in myositis spectrum interstitial lung disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The impact of autoantibody profiles on the prognosis for idiopathic inflammatory myositis-associated interstitial lung disease (IIM-ILD) and myositis spectrum ILD with myositis-specific antibodies (MSAs) remains unclear. This retrospective cohort study examined whether serological profiles were associated with mortality or longitudinal lung function change. METHODS: The baseline clinical/demographic characteristics and follow-up lung function data of consecutive adult patients with IIM-ILD or interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features (IPAF) positive for MSAs (IPAF-MSA) were extracted from three hospitals. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards analyses were used to compare mortality between groups of patients with different autoantibodies. Regression models were used to analyse their lung function trends. RESULTS: Of the 430 included patients, 81% met the IIM criteria, and the remaining 19% were diagnosed with IPAF-MSA. On univariate analysis, the risk factors associated with mortality included higher age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and CRP; and lower BMI, baseline TLCO% and FEV1%. Compared with anti-MDA5 negativity, anti-MDA5 positivity (MDA5+) was associated with higher mortality in the first 3 months [hazard ratio (HR) 65.2, 95% CI 14.1, 302.0], while no significant difference was seen thereafter (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.14, 2.28). On multivariate analysis, combined anti-synthetase antibodies were associated with a reduced risk of mortality (HR 0.63), although individually, mortality was reduced in patients with anti-Jo1+ (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.4-0.87) and increased in patients with anti-PL7+ (HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.44-2.99). Anti-MDA5+ was associated with slow improvement in %FVC over the first 3 years, while anti-PL7+ was linked with a slow decline from 12 months onwards. CONCLUSION: Among the autoantibody profiles in myositis spectrum disorders, anti-MDA5+ and anti-PL7+ conferred higher mortality risks in patients with IIM-ILD. Survivors of an early peak of mortality in anti-MDA5+ disease appeared to have a favourable prognosis.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".