Expression of myxovirus‐resistance protein A: a possible marker of muscle disease activity and autoantibody specificities in juvenile dermatomyositis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate the relationship between expression of myxovirus-resistance protein A (MxA) protein on muscle biopsies by immunohistochemistry and disease activity in juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM) patients. Also, another aim was to investigate whether the expression of MxA is related with myositis-specific autoantibodies (MSA) status in JDM patients.103 patients (median aged 6.3, interquartile range 0.5-15.9) enrolled in the Juvenile Dermatomyositis Cohort and Biomarker Study (JDCBS). Muscle biopsies were stained with MxA and scored. Clinical data at initial presentation were collected and autoantibodies were analysed. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to estimate the association between MxA expression on muscle fibres and muscle disease activity, and MSA status.Expression of MxA protein on JDM samples was identified in 61.2%. There was a significant association between MxA scores and Childhood Myositis Assessment Scale (CMAS) (P = 0.002), and Manual Muscle Testing of Eight Muscles (MMT8) (P = 0.026). CMAS and MMT8 scores were significantly lower in the group of patients with strong MxA expression. MxA scores differed according to MSA subgroups (P = 0.002). Patients with positive nuclear matrix protein 2 autoantibodies had strong MxA expression, whereas anti-melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 positive patients had no or weak MxA expression.This study reveals the significant association between level of MxA expression on muscle fibres and clinical measures of muscular disease activity in JDM patients and MSA status. This confirms type I interferonopathies in muscle fibres of JDM patients which could help with improving treatment outcome in JDM patients and underscoring the distinct pathophysiological pathways in different MSA status.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".