Antibodies directed to protein S in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: prevalence and clinical significance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antibodies directed against protein S (anti-ProtS) may be involved in the development of thrombosis in patients with the antiphospholipid syndrome. We assessed the prevalence and clinical significance of anti-ProtS and evaluated their immunological characteristics in 184 patients with SLE and 99 healthy donors. All patients were tested for IgG anti-ProtS by an in-house ELISA. Plasma levels and functional activity of protein S were also tested. Anti-ProtS were found in 57 patients (31%) and 4 healthy controls (4%). Patients with thrombosis had anti-ProtS more frequently than controls (29% vs 4%, OR 9.5 [95% CI 3.07-29.3], p<0.0001). Anti-ProtS were more frequent in patients with venous thrombosis and in those with arterial thrombosis, than in controls (41% vs. 4%, OR 16.5 [95% CI 5-54], p<0.0001 and 23% vs. 4%, OR 7 [95%CI 2.1-23.5], p=0.0008, respectively). Patients with prematurity, preeclampsia and intrauterine growth restriction had anti-ProtS more frequently than the control group (36%, 47% and 44% vs. 4%; OR 13.6 [95% CI 2.8-66], p=0.003, OR 21 [95% CI 5-86], p<0.0001 and OR 19 [95% CI 4-99], p=0.0014, respectively). Plasma levels of free protein S were not statistically different between patients with and without anti-ProtS and controls (77.9% [20.7-100] vs. 83.7% [52.7-100] vs. 89% [62-101], respectively). Free protein S functional activity was no different between subgroups (105% [48-230] in anti-ProtS positive vs. 123% [95-283] in anti-ProtS negative vs. 136% [60-174] in controls). Anti-ProtS are frequent in SLE patients with thrombosis and pregnancy morbidity. These antibodies do not interfere with free protein S in plasma since its level and/or functional activity are not impaired.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".