Patient and Physician Perspectives of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Flare: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) flares are associated with increased damage and decreased health-related quality of life. We hypothesized that there is discordance between physicians' and patients' views of SLE flare. In this study, we aimed to explore patient and physician descriptions of SLE flares. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study using in-depth interviews with a purposeful sample of patients with SLE (who met 1997 American College of Rheumatology or Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics criteria) and practicing rheumatologists. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using applied thematic analysis. RESULTS: Forty-two patient participants with SLE, representing a range of SLE activity, completed interviews. The majority described flare symptoms as joint pain, fatigue, and skin issues lasting several days. Few included objective signs or laboratory measures, when available, as features of flare. We interviewed 13 rheumatologists from 10 academic and 3 community settings. The majority defined flare as increased or worsening SLE disease activity, with slightly more than half requiring objective findings. Around half of the rheumatologists included fatigue, pain, or other patient-reported symptoms. CONCLUSION: Patients and physicians described flare differently. Participants with SLE perceived flares as several days of fatigue, pain, and skin issues. Providers defined flares as periods of increased clinical SLE activity. Our findings suggest the current definition of flare may be insufficient to integrate both perceptions. Further study is needed to understand the pathophysiology of patient flares and the best way to incorporate patients' perspectives into clinical assessments.
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 | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".