MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411846605 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.2025-0314.68

Using the Southern Alberta Vasculitis Registry to Assess Quality of Care Standards for Giant Cell Arteritis

2025· article· en· W4411846605 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Hae-Won Son, Stephen Williams, Aurore Fifi‐Mah, Stephanie Garner

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVasculitis and related conditions
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGiant cell arteritisVasculitisArteritisQuality (philosophy)DermatologyInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives Using the Southern Alberta Vasculitis Registry, review quality of care metrics for giant cell arteritis (GCA). Methods The SAVR was searched for GCA cases. All cases met ACR classification criteria for GCA to improve comparability with other studies.[1] Living and deceased patients were included. The audit standards recommended by the UK GCA Hospital Quality standards (GHOST) were reviewed and included: Time to ultrasound, time to temporal biopsy, time to and PET/CT following request.[2] These audit standards were in keeping with the recommendations noted in the ACR/VF 2021 GCA treatment guidelines.[3] Results Figure 1 shows full breakdown. High-dose steroids: The GHOST benchmark is administration of high-dose steroid within 24 hrs. The SAVR median (1 day) met this standard but not the mean (2.91 days, range 1-16 days). 88% of patients received high-dose steroids. Of these, 11% (5/45) received methylprednisolone. All cases of methylprednisolone use involved patients with vision loss or stroke features. Patients who did not receive high-dose steroids either had lower dose steroid started by non-rheumatologist (2/45) or had an incidental discovery of their GCA and were on alternative therapies (3/45). Time to temporal artery biopsy (TAB): The median (4 days) and mean (15.04 days) both meet the GHOST benchmark (28 days). The mean did not meet the ACR/EULAR recommendations of TAB within 14 days. 51% of patients received TAB, 74% of those had a positive TAB. Time to temporal artery ultrasound (TAUS): The median (6 days) but not the mean (16.75 days) met the GHOST benchmark (7 days). 36% of patients receive TAUS and 75% of those had a positive TAUS. Time to PET/CT: Neither the median (38 days) nor the mean (37 days) met the GHOST benchmark (7 days). Only 8.9% (4//45) patients had PET/CT imaging as part of their baseline imaging for GCA. Figure 1 Conclusion This study highlights the importance of establishing local clinical care pathways for GCA diagnosis and management. While the GHOST benchmarks provide useful context, some of the standards are not readily applicable due to resource limitations in some jurisdictions (ex. PET/CT within 7 days of diagnosis). A further limitation of the GHOST recommendations are using time to intervention from steroid initiation rather than time to intervention from GCA diagnosis. Local concerns, not captured by GHOST benchmarks include high variable time to diagnosis (average 80.17 days, median 42 days, range 1-375 days) and low baseline large vessel imagine (CTA-8.8%, MRA-6.7%). [1.] Ponte C. Arthritis & Rheumatology 2022;74(12):1881-9. [2.] Bilton EJ. Eye (Lond) 2024;38(1):1-3. [3.] Maz M. Arthritis & Rheumatology 2021;73(8):1349-65. Practice Reflection Award

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
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 score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.652

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0120.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicVasculitis and related conditionsFrench-language works237,207