Treatment of 139 Pregnancies in Antiphospholipid-positive Women Not Fulfilling Criteria for Antiphospholipid Syndrome: A Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The effect of low-dose aspirin (LDA) on pregnancy outcome in antiphospholipid (aPL)-positive women not fulfilling the criteria for antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS) was evaluated retrospectively. METHODS: We evaluated 139 pregnancies of 114 aPL-positive women not fulfilling the Sydney classification criteria for definite APS (104 treated with LDA, 35 untreated). Inclusion criteria consisted of (1) any titer of aPL and no previous pregnancy or no pregnancy losses (defined as aPL carriers); (2) any titer of aPL and 1 or 2 pregnancy losses before the 10th gestational week. No women had previous thrombosis. The rate of pregnancy loss, gestational age at delivery, and birth weight percentile were compared in the treated and untreated patients. Associations between clinical and laboratory characteristics and pregnancy outcomes were investigated. RESULTS: The rate of pregnancy loss was low in both treated and untreated groups (7.7% vs 2.9%, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences in the rate of pregnancy loss, gestational age at birth, or birth weight percentile in the treated and untreated groups. There were significant associations between gestational age at birth ≤ 34th week and positivity for lupus anticoagulant (p = 0.025) and anti-ß2-glycoprotein I IgG antibodies at titers > 99th (p = 0.016). CONCLUSION: LDA treatment does not appear to improve pregnancy outcome in low-risk women not fulfilling the criteria for APS. Because antibody profile seems to influence pregnancy outcome, further studies of patients stratified according to their antibody profile are warranted.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".