Correlation Between Serum Anti-C1q Antibody Levels and Renal Pathological Characteristics and Prognostic Significance of Anti-C1q Antibody in Lupus Nephritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between serum anti-C1q antibody levels and renal pathological characteristics in lupus nephritis as well as the prognostic significance of serum anti-C1q antibody. METHODS: Seventy-three patients with biopsy-proven lupus nephritis were enrolled. Anti-C1q antibody was measured in serum samples taken within 7 days before renal biopsy and remeasured at the end of the first and the third month after treatment. All patients were followed at least once a month for 3 months. A cross-sectional study analyzed the relationship between serum anti-C1q antibody levels and renal histopathology and nephritic activity, while a longitudinal study evaluated the prognostic significance of anti-C1q antibody levels in lupus nephritis. RESULTS: Fifty-eight of 73 patients (79.5%) were reported as having positive baseline serum anti-C1q antibody, with a mean level of 95.3 (+/- 55.2) U/ml. Significant differences were found in serum anti-C1q antibody levels between each World Health Organization (WHO) classification of lupus nephritis. The serum anti-C1q antibody level of WHO class IV was the highest. Serum anti-C1q antibody was positively correlated with the active and chronic indices in renal pathology. Patients with persistent high levels or increased titers of serum anti-C1q antibody tended to develop delayed remission in nephropathy. Serum anti-C1q antibody levels before and after treatment were relevant to renal remission, but serum anti-C1q antibody at the end of the third month after treatment was a stronger predictor for the prognosis after adjustment in the Cox's proportional hazards regression model. CONCLUSION: Serum anti-C1q antibody is a valuable noninvasive biological marker for evaluation of renal involvement and lupus prognosis.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".