Performance of Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score and disease extent index in childhood vasculitides.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS) v3 and the Disease Extent Index (DEI) for the assessment of disease activity in 4 primary childhood (c-) systemic vasculitides. METHODS: Patients fulfilling the EULAR/PRINTO/PRES (Ankara) c-vasculitis classification criteria for Henoch-Schönlein purpura (HSP), childhood (c) polyarteritis nodosa (c-PAN), c-Wegener's granulomatosis (c-WG) and c-Takayasu arteritis (c-TA) with disease duration at the time of diagnosis ≤3 months were extracted from the PRINTO database. The performance of the BVAS and DEI were examined by assessing convergent validity, the pattern of disease involvement, and responsiveness. We also evaluated alternative unweighted scoring methods for both tools. RESULTS: The analysis set included 796 patients with 669 HSP, 80 c-PAN, 25 c-WG and 22 c-TA. The median age at diagnosis was 6.9 years (6.6-12) and median delay in making the diagnosis from the onset of signs/symptoms was 0.01 (0.003-0.027) years. A strong correlation was found between the BVAS and DEI (rs=0.78) while correlation with the physician global assessment was moderate (rs=0.48) with BVAS and poor with DEI (rs=0.25). Both the BVAS and DEI sub-scores and total scores were able to descrive the disease involvement in the 4 childhood vasculitides. Responsiveness was large (>1.5) for both tools. The performance characteristics of the BVAS and DEI with the unweighted methods were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that both the BVAS and DEI are valid tools for the assessment of the level of disease activity in a large cohort of childhood acute and chronic vasculitides.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".