A review of the sapporo and revised Sapporo criteria for the classification of antiphospholipid syndrome. Where do the revised sapporo criteria add value?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The preliminary classification criteria for antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), or the Sapporo criteria, are widely used for the inclusion of patients with APS into clinical studies. Revised Sapporo criteria have been proposed as an improved criteria set. Whether these criteria sets fulfill the current standards of measurement science are unknown. The purpose of this study was (1) to evaluate the developmental methodology and measurement properties of the Sapporo and the revised Sapporo criteria for use in clinical trials; and (2) to evaluate if the revised Sapporo criteria provide added value over the Sapporo criteria. METHODS: A computer search for articles describing use of the Sapporo and the revised Sapporo criteria was performed. Item generation, item reduction, sensibility, validity, and reliability of the criteria were evaluated. RESULTS: The Sapporo criteria set has incremental face and content validity over its predecessors. However, through separation of anti-ss2-glycoprotein I antibodies as a sub-item, the specification of a wider time interval between serologic testing, the specification of a time interval between serology and clinical manifestations, and specification of definitions for clinical manifestations and laboratory titer thresholds, the revised Sapporo criteria set has incremental face and content validity over the Sapporo criteria. The complexity of the criteria, diagnostic tests, and immunologic tests limits their feasibility. The reliability of each criterion is unknown. The discriminative capacity of the Sapporo criteria is good, with sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of 0.71, 0.98, 0.95, and 0.88, respectively, compared to patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. The discriminative capacity of the revised Sapporo criteria is unknown. CONCLUSION: The revised Sapporo criteria set has incremental face and content validity compared its predecessors. Reliability testing of each criterion is needed before these criteria can be confidently used in multicenter APS trials. Discriminatory testing of the revised Sapporo criteria is required.
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 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".