MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

SLE CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA ITEM RELATIONSHIPS: IMPLICATIONS ON SLE AS A DISEASE ENTITY

2025· article· en· W4410513061 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Martin Aringer, Franziska Szelinski, Thomas E. Dorner, Karen H. Costenbader, Sindhu R. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare and Venom Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiseaseDisease entityImmunopathologyMEDLINEImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PV216 / #355 Poster Topic: AS23 - SLE-Diagnosis, Manifestations, & Outcomes Background/Purpose To investigate for clusters and associations between the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR)/American College for Rheumatology (ACR) classification criteria items. Methods Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) was performed on the 10 classification criteria domains, using R (version 4.3.2) and FactoMineR (version 2.11) package in an international cohort of 1,197 SLE patients. Consensus clustering was performed using the ConsensusClusterPlus package (Version 1.66.0). Associations between individual criteria items were analyzed in the full 23x23 table (Graph Pad prism), and, by Bonferroni’s correction, statistical significance was defined as p<9.45e-5. Results SLE patients fulfilled a minimum of zero (n=1) and a maximum of 15 of the 23 items (median 6) within 0 to 9 of the 10 domains (median 4). More than 2/3 of the patients (presently and/or historically) had criteria items within the domain SLE-specific antibodies (79.8%), the mucocutaneous (72.0%) and musculoskeletal (71.9%) domains, and complements (71.6%). In MCA, constitutional, musculoskeletal, and serosal domains clustered together, separating from the renal domain, complements, and SLE-specific antibodies (Figure 1A). However, the distribution of individual patients based on the first 2 dimensions (Figure 1B) was not reflective of a relevant separation of the cohort within those 2 dimensions. Consensus clustering, set at 10 clusters according to the cumulative distribution function (CDF, Figure 2A and 2B), revealed clusters with various combinations of domains (Figure 2C, proportion of patients with items in the respective domain indicated), but without a clear, mutually exclusive pattern. Among the 529 pairwise comparisons of items, 27 pairs showed a positive association, with r-values ranging from 0.11 to 0.58, and 4 pairs a negative association (r-values from -0.13 to -0.16). All r-values of 0.3 or higher were within an organ domain. An r-value of ≥2.0 was found for anti-dsDNA, proteinuria, and proliferative (class III or IV) nephritis, each with low complements, in addition to associations between domains. Figure 1. MCA. Figure 2. Consensus Clustering. Conclusions We found distributions more compatible with chance associations of domains and items than with true SLE subsets. The associations between items within domains support the decision to use domains in the EULAR/ACR classification criteria structure.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicHealthcare and Venom ResearchFrench-language works237,207