Autoantibodies in lupus nephritis patients requiring renal transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this nested case-control study was to compare autoantibody profiles in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients with lupus nephritis (LN), lupus nephritis patients requiring renal transplantation (LNTP) and a SLE control group without nephritis (CON). Sera were assayed for a variety of autoantibodies by addressable laser bead immunoassay (ALBIA) and enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) and to dsDNA by Crithidia luciliae assay. The frequency of nucleosome autoantibodies was significantly greater in the LNTP group (79%) compared to the LN (18%) and CON (9%) groups (P < 0.0005). The frequency of other autoantibodies, including anti-dsDNA, did not differ significantly between groups. Among patients with LN, the odds of progressing to renal transplantation was 16-fold higher (OR 16.5 [95% CI 2.5, 125.7], P = 0.0005) in patients testing positive for anti-nucleosome antibodies compared to those who tested negative. Furthermore, the level of anti-nucleosome antibodies was significantly ( P < 0.00005) higher in the LNTP group (3.69 +/- 2.79) than the LN (0.51 +/- 0.51) and CON (0.34 +/- 0.44) groups. Review of 48 renal biopsies from 29 patients indicated that there was no difference in renal histological classification among patients with anti-nucleosome antibodies compared to those who tested negative. Our observations suggest that nucleosome autoantibodies are a biomarker for more severe SLE renal disease requiring transplantation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".