The risk factors of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis-associated interstitial lung disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic Antibody-Associated Vasculitis (AAV) is an immune-mediated disease characterized by Anti-Neutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody (ANCA) positivity. Patients with AAV are known to be at high risk for the occurrence of Interstitial Lung Disease (ILD). The authors aimed to explore the risk factors in patients with AAV-ILD to enhance awareness among the public and healthcare providers, and to facilitate the timely adoption of effective strategies for prevention and management. METHODS: The authors searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI), the WanFang Database, Chinese biomedical literature service system (SinoMed), and China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP) for studies that focused on the risk factors in patients with AAV-ILD from database inception to 21 September 2024. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The authors used a random-effects model or a fixed-effects model to evaluate the underlying risk factors of AAV-ILD. RESULTS: A total of 25 studies were included, including 13 case-control studies, 5 cohort studies, and 7 cross-sectional studies, respectively. The authors identified preliminary risk factors for AAV-ILD, including age, male, smoking history, KL-6, ESR, MPO-ANCA, cough, dyspnea, and HRCT findings such as honeycombing, interlobular septal thickening, and lattice shadows, Ear, nose & throat involvement, Hb, alb, BVAS, and fever. The study design type, follow-up (time), Country, sample, type of AAV, quality score, and were initially considered not to be sources of heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: This study has preliminarily identified multiple risk factors associated with ILD in AAV patients, encompassing sociodemographic, lifestyle, and clinical factors. While these findings may serve as a reference for further investigation, large-scale prospective cohort studies or longitudinal research remain necessary for validation. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, identifier CRD42024592874.
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 | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".