Accurately describing changes in disease activity in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) scores correlate with the clinician's impression of level of disease activity. METHODS: In total, 230 patients with SLE followed at the University of Toronto Lupus Clinic who had 5 visits 3 months apart in 1992-93 were studied. At each visit a standard protocol was completed. A clinician who did not know the patients or their SLEDAI scores evaluated each patient record and assigned a clinical activity level. "Flare" was defined by new or increased therapy for active disease, an expression of concern, or use of the term "flare" in the physician's notes. The SLEDAI score was calculated from the database. RESULTS: SLEDAI scores described a range of clinical activity as recognized by the clinician. Median SLEDAI scores ranged from 2 (inactive disease) to 8 (persistently active or flare). When the clinician assessed the patient to be improved, the median SLEDAI score decreased by 2. When the clinician assessed that the patient was experiencing a flare, the SLEDAI score increased by a median of 4. CONCLUSION: Based on our data we propose the following outcomes for patients with SLE: flare, an increase in SLEDAI > 3; improvement is a reduction in SLEDAI of > 3; persistently active disease is change in SLEDAI +/- 3; and remission a SLEDAI of 0. These outcomes will allow a more complete description of a patient's response to therapeutic intervention in a responder index.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".