Epidemiology and disease burden of connective tissue disease-associated interstitial lung disease (CTD-ILD) in Asia: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Interstitial lung diseases (ILD) associated with an underlying connective tissue disease (CTD), also known as a systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease or SARD, are chronic conditions with a tendency to progress. CTD-ILDs are increasingly diagnosed and pose an important global health challenge. This systematic review aims to provide an overarching evaluation of their epidemiology and disease burden in Asia. In this review, the term CTD-ILD will be used to denote all major forms of ILD arising in the context of a SARD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic review will adhere to the standards of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, including a flow diagram to depict the process by four independent reviewers that will assess titles and abstracts against the following predetermined criteria. A systematic review of the literature search published from 2000 to 2024 will be conducted using five electronic databases including PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. Publications that meet the inclusion criteria of this review will be subjected to a full-text review to extract relevant data. Collated data will be analysed and organised into categories based on the expected outcome and objectives. The quality of published evidence, including heterogeneity across studies, will be checked against PRISMA checklists and assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not applicable for this study since no original data will be collected. The findings of this review will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication in a scientific journal and conference communications, with the aim of contributing insights to the field by identifying research gaps and informing clinical practice. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: The protocol of this systematic review is registered with the National Medical & Research Register (ID-24-03600-GUB) and International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO (CRD420251037095).
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 | 0.082 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.074 | 0.008 |
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".