ArticleFrontiers in immunology2024
Identification of novel clinical subtypes in patients with microscopic polyangiitis using cluster analysis: multicenter REVEAL cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical features and prognosis of EGPA-associated peripheral neuropathy: a multicentre REVEAL cohort study.Journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Clinical phenotypes of ANCA-associated vasculitis using ensemble clustering: prognostic and therapeutic insights from two Japanese cohorts.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Phenotype, serotype, and data-driven clustering reveal complementary dimensions of heterogeneity in ANCA-associated vasculitis: a multicentre Japanese cohort (J-CANVAS).Rheumatology international · 2025Article
- Long-term efficacy of rituximab versus intravenous cyclophosphamide for severe ANCA-associated vasculitis in multicenter REVEAL cohort study.Journal of internal medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study aimed to identify new clinical phenotypes of microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) using a principal components analysis (PCA)-based cluster analysis. Methods: A total of 189 patients with MPA between May 2005 and December 2021 were enrolled from a multicenter cohort in Japan (REVEAL cohort). Categorical PCA and cluster analysis were performed based on clinical, laboratory, and radiological findings. Clinical characteristics and outcomes, including all-cause mortality, respiratory-related mortality, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and relapse were compared between each cluster. Results: Eleven clinical variables were transformed into four components using categorical PCA and synthetic variables were created. Additionally, a cluster analysis was performed using these variables to classify patients with MPA into subgroups. Four distinct clinical subgroups were identified: Cluster 1 included the renal involvements and diffuse alveolar hemorrhage (DAH)-dominant group (N=33). Cluster 2 comprised the elderly onset systemic inflammation group (N=75). Cluster 3 included patients in the younger-onset limited-organ disease group (N=45). Cluster 4 was comprised of an ILD-predominant group without kidney involvement (N=36). 61 patients died during follow-up, with 32 dying of respiratory-related causes. Additionally, 19 patients developed ESRD and 70 relapsed. Cluster 1 showed the worst ESRD-free survival and relapse rates, whereas Cluster 2 showed the worst overall survival and respiratory-related death-free survival rates among the four groups. Conclusions: Our study identified four unique subgroups with different MPA outcomes. Individualized treatments for each subgroup may be required to improve the prognosis of MPA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.