In vitro culture conditions, antiphospholipid antibodies and trophoblast function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sir, We read with interest the review of in vitro effects of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) on placental cell cultures by Tong et al. (2015). We congratulate the authors on this comprehensive evaluation of the literature to date. Dr Tong and colleagues conceded the limitations on their ability to draw conclusions, notably the heterogeneity of the studies including variable placental models, sources of aPL and effects measured. Despite these limitations, however, the authors concluded that aPL reduce trophoblast viability, syncytialization and invasion in vitro and suggested that the cumulative data support the theory of aPL-mediated dysfunctional placental development in vivo. We propose there is still insufficient or unsubstantiated evidence that aPL interfere with early development of the placenta in vivo for several reasons. Disregarding for a moment the heterogeneity of the objectives of the studies cited, there are several issues with regard to the in vitro culture systems that concern us.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".