Autoimmunity in Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last few years, an autoimmune hypothesis for the pathogenesis of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) has been proposed often, with variable success because of inconsistent supporting data. We are now aware that at least one subgroup of TTP patients does present with pathogenic autoantibodies (i.e, anti-ADAMTS13); this group consequently is a putative candidate for a curative treatment including plasma exchange (still the cornerstone of TTP treatment), together with corticosteroids or other immunosuppressants. Furthermore, for patients not responding to or relapsing following plasma exchange, the use of stronger immunosuppression (e.g., with the use of the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody rituximab) should be considered as appropriate. Conversely, few data are actually available regarding the complex relationship between TTP and the antiphospholipid (aPL) syndrome, as well as other autoimmune diseases. Indeed, a correct differential diagnosis should be done on the basis of both different clinical presentations and autoantibody profile. At present, the presence of aPL antibodies should give evidence against a diagnosis of TTP, even though we cannot exclude that aPL antibodies may, in a minority of patients, be associated with a primary endothelial damage ultimately resulting in overt TTP.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".