MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

CALCINOSIS CUTIS IN LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS PANNICULITIS SHOW PREDILECTION FOR TRUNCAL LOCATION

2025· article· en· W4410513041 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jesús Alberto Cárdenas‐de la Garza, Benjamin F. Chong

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInflammatory Myopathies and Dermatomyositis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCalcinosis cutisCalcinosisDermatologyPanniculitisLupus erythematosusSystemic diseasePathologyCalcificationImmunopathologyImmunologyAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PV061 / #136 Poster Topic: AS07 - Cutaneous Lupus Background/Purpose Lupus erythematosus panniculitis (LEP) is a rare form of chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus characterized by indurated nodules or plaques resulting in pronounced skin atrophy. Calcinosis cutis (CC) is a disease sequela associated with LEP, leading to the significant impact on patients’ quality of life due to pain and limited treatment options. The frequency of development and risk factors associated with CC in LEP remain unclear. This study aims to assess the rate of CC in LEP patients and identify factors that may increase development of CC, thereby providing insights into monitoring and management strategies for LEP patients. Methods This retrospective cohort study reviewed data from 26 patients diagnosed with LEP and treated at the outpatient dermatology clinics of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and Parkland Health between April 2009 and August 2024. The primary outcome measure was the presence of CC, confirmed through clinical evaluation by a dermatologist, biopsy, or imaging. Patient data included demographic details, smoking history, disease duration, lesion location, medications, and ANA positivity. Frequency counts and medians were calculated for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. We analyzed predictor variables for presence of CC using Mann-Whitney U and Fisher’s exact tests to examine associations. Results Of the 26 LEP patients, 10 (38%) were diagnosed with CC (Table 1). For these 10 patients, the median duration after diagnosis of LEP to diagnosis of CC was 3.98 years. LEP Patients that were diagnosed with calcinosis cutis had greater LEP involvement of their trunk, with 9/10 (90%) patients with LEP truncal involvement having CC, compared to only 5/16 (31%) in the group that did not have CC (p=0.01) (Table 2). The CC lesions on the 10 patients that developed this sequela were found predominantly on the trunk (6) and arms (5). No significant associations were found between CC development and other variables, including demographic factors, ANA positivity, smoking history, medications, and follow-up duration (Table 1). Table 1: Univariate analysis of demographics and clinical risk factors of lupus erythematosus panniculitis (LEP) patients with and without calcinosis cutis (CC) Table 2: Body site involvement of lupus erythematosus panniculitis (LEP) lesions in LEP patients with and without calcinosis cutis (CC) Conclusions In one of the larger cohorts of LEP patients studied to date, over one-third had CC, and truncal lesions, such as those in the chest and buttocks, were significantly correlated with this complication. The median disease duration from LEP diagnosis to CC diagnosis was about 4 years. The substantial occurrence of CC in LEP highlights the need for vigilant clinical monitoring of CC in LEP. This study is limited by its single-center, retrospective design, and small sample size. Further prospective studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to confirm these results and clarify the timing and mechanisms behind CC development in LEP patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicInflammatory Myopathies and DermatomyositisFrench-language works237,207