MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W138174736

The frequency and significance of anticardiolipin antibodies in scleroderma.

2000· article· en· W138174736 on OpenAlexaff
Janet Pope, Alexandra Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Sclerosis and Related Diseases
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineScleroderma (fungus)GangreneSystemic diseaseDermatologyConnective tissue diseaseLocalized SclerodermaInternal medicineSurgeryAutoimmune diseaseDiseasePathologyFibrosis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency and significance of anticardiolipin antibodies (aCL) in scleroderma. METHODS: We serially tested for aCL in a standardized fashion in patients with scleroderma who were outpatients and gave consent to enter this study. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients participated in this study. Thirty-six had diffuse scleroderma and 27 had limited scleroderma. Three (4.8%) were positive for aCL, of whom 2 had limited scleroderma. In only one patient aCL may have been clinically significant. This woman had limited scleroderma for years and had medium vessel occlusive disease with gangrene eventually requiring midfoot amputations and chronic warfarin treatment. She did not have features of systemic lupus erythematosus or other overlap conditions. The other 2 patients had no manifestations of the antiphospholipid antibody syndrome. CONCLUSION: aCL in scleroderma rarely manifest clinically. The range of frequency of positive aCL in the literature is from 0 to 63%. From our study and the literature, we cannot ascertain if the prevalence is different in limited and diffuse scleroderma.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicSystemic Sclerosis and Related DiseasesFrench-language works237,207