OX40/OX40L in systemic lupus erythematosus: Association with disease activity and lupus nephritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: OX40-OX40L interaction is implicated in the pathogenesis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). We evaluated the role of OX40/OX40L as markers of disease activity and nephritis in SLE patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: Case-control study conducted in 2009 on SLE patients attending the outpatient clinics of Ain Shams University Hospital, Egypt. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We assessed the percentage of CD4+ T-lymphocytes expressing OX40 by flowcytometry, and serum OX40 ligand (OX40L) levels in 40 patients with SLE (20 with lupus nephritis and 20 without) and in 20 healthy controls. Disease activity was assessed by the University of Toronto SLE disease activity index (SLEDAI). RESULTS: The percentage of CD4+ T-lymphocytes expressing OX40 was significantly higher in SLE patients than in controls, and in patients with lupus nephritis than in those without. OX40 expression correlated positively with both serum creatinine levels and SLEDAI. OX40 expression was the highest in patients with class V lupus nephritis and lowest in class II. Serum OX40L levels were significantly higher in SLE patients than in controls, and in patients with nephritis than in those without. Serum OX40L levels correlated with serum creatinine levels but not with SLEDAI. OX40 expression on CD4+ T-cells had a higher sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing lupus nephritis than both OX40L and anti-double-stranded DNA levels. CONCLUSION: OX40-OX40L interaction plays a role in the pathogenesis of SLE. The expression of OX40 on CD4+ T-lymphocytes and the serum level of OX40L may act as markers of lupus nephritis. Measurements of percentages of CD4+ T-lymphocytes expressing OX40 may serve as an indicator of disease activity in SLE.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".