Estimation of prevalence of autoimmune diseases in the United States using electronic health record data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUNDPrevious epidemiologic studies of autoimmune diseases in the US have included a limited number of diseases or used metaanalyses that rely on different data collection methods and analyses for each disease.METHODSTo estimate the prevalence of autoimmune diseases in the US, we used electronic health record data from 6 large medical systems in the US. We developed a software program using common methodology to compute the estimated prevalence of autoimmune diseases alone and in aggregate that can be readily used by other investigators to replicate or modify the analysis over time.RESULTSOur findings indicate that over 15 million people, or 4.6% of the US population, have been diagnosed with at least 1 autoimmune disease from January 1, 2011, to June 1, 2022, and 34% of those are diagnosed with more than 1 autoimmune disease. As expected, females (63% of those with autoimmune disease) were almost twice as likely as males to be diagnosed with an autoimmune disease. We identified the top 20 autoimmune diseases based on prevalence and according to sex and age.CONCLUSIONHere, we provide, for what we believe to be the first time, a large-scale prevalence estimate of autoimmune disease in the US by sex and age.FUNDINGAutoimmune Registry Inc., the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".