MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416734249 · doi:10.4081/reumatismo.2025.2035

PO:14:206 | Factors impacting subjective cognitive impairment in systemic lupus erythematosus patients: clearing away the lupus brain fog

2025· article· W4416734249 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Società Italiana Di Reumatologia

Bibliographic record

VenueReumatismo · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLogistic regressionNeuropsychologySystemic lupus erythematosusDepression (economics)Univariate analysisNeuropsychological testCognitionNeuropsychological assessmentMultivariate analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients (pts) often suffered from an impairment in cognitive functions, but a universal definition of “brain fog” does not exist. The objective of the study was to evaluate the prevalence of subjective impairment and objective mental alterations (depression, cognition, fatigue) adopting screening tools validated in SLE; also we aimed to investigate which factors were associated with brain fog. Methods. A Cross-sectional study was conducted enrolling adult SLE pts. Brain fog referred to the presence of mental alterations (i.e.; memory, concentration, attention...) as reported by SLE participants. To minimize contribution of type B symptoms, we made a subanalysis of brain fog involving pts with active disease, namely lupus fog. Demographic, clinical, therapeutic data were collected (Table). Serum anti-ribosomal P antibodies (anti-RibP) were quantified using ELISA kits. Cognitive deficits were assessed by a neuropsychologist exploring deficits in 8 cognitive domains with a battery of neuropsychological tests and screened using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test performed by certified personnel (cut-off<26/30). Depressive symptoms were evaluated using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) (>15). Fatigue was measured using FACIT-F (<34). Chi-squared test and the Mann-Whitney test were used for univariate analysis (UV-A); multivariate analysis (MV-A) was performed building logistic regression models including variables showing p <0.10. Results. 114 SLE pts were enrolled (Table), 105 female (92.1%), mean age 43.7 years (+-12.2). Brain fog was found in 54% pts, with memory deficit reported in 49.1%, attention in 38.6%, concentration in 10.5% and afasia nominum in 5.3%. CES-D>15 was altered in 53.3%, MoCA<26 in 45% and FACIT<34 in 52.9%. At UV-A, an association emerged between the presence of brain fog and CES-D (Fig1A, score p<0.001), FACIT (Fig1A, score p=0.012), fibromyalgia (p<0.001), the neuropsychiatric involvement (p=0.015), anti-RNP (p=0.014), anti Rib-P (p=0.018) and disease duration (p=0.045). No association was found with MoCA test, the battery of neuropsychological test, disease activity scores or treatment. At MV-A, an independent association between brain fog and fibromyalgia (OR=34.6; 95%CI 2.3-523.1, p=0.011), CES-D score (OR=1.1 per unit, 95%CI 1.0-1.2, p=0.033) and disease duration (OR=1.1 per year, 95%CI 1.0-1.2, p=0.038) emerged. Out of 46 pts with clinically active disease, 21 were classified as lupus fog, resulting associated at UV-A with CES-D (Fig2A, score p=0.034), FACIT (Fig2A, score p=0.024) , fibromyalgia (p=0.017). MV-A showed independent association between lupus fog and FACIT score (OR=-0.146; 95%CI -0.275 to -0.017). Conclusion. Brain fog is frequent in SLE pts, but did not correlate with cognitive dysfunction, but with longer disease duration, depressive symptoms, fibromyalgia and in active pts with fatigue. Our findings suggest that SLE pts may have a negative perception about proper cognitive performances, without having a real impairment, supporting the need for assessing depressive and fatigue symptoms during clinical visits.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.282 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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 venueReumatismoSame topicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchFrench-language works237,207