Incidence of postpartum thrombosis and preterm delivery in women with antiphospholipid antibodies and recurrent pregnancy loss.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of preterm deliveries and postpartum thrombotic events (TE) in pregnancies resulting in live birth in women with antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) and a history of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) but without prior TE. METHODS: We reviewed the pregnancy outcomes of women referred to our clinic with a history of RPL. Prepregnancy investigation of RPL included history of TE and aPL positivity (anticardiolipin IgG and lupus anticoagulant). We recorded use of anticoagulation therapy during and after pregnancy, obstetric outcome, gestational age at delivery, and postpartum course. Included in our study were women with unexplained RPL with no history of TE attending our clinic who subsequently had pregnancies that resulted in a live birth. RESULTS: Over a 5-year period, 260 women with RPL and no history of TE had a live birth at our clinic. Eighty-seven (33.5%) were positive for aPL and 173 (66.5%) were negative for aPL. Twenty-four percent of deliveries in the aPL-positive group occurred before 37 weeks' gestation compared to 9.8% of deliveries in the aPL-negative group (p = 0.004; 95% CI 0.052-0.234). There were no antepartum TE in either group. One woman in the aPL-positive group (1.1%) had a deep vein thrombosis 3.5 weeks postpartum while receiving prophylactic anticoagulant therapy, compared to none in the aPL-negative group. CONCLUSION: A significantly higher proportion of aPL-positive patients had preterm deliveries compared to aPL-negative patients, but pregnancy-related TE was infrequent: 99.0% of aPL-positive women with a history of RPL and no prior TE who had a live birth at our clinic had an uneventful pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum course.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".