Pulmonary Hemorrhage in Antiphospholipid Antibody Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize the clinical manifestations of patients with antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS) and pulmonary hemorrhage (PH). METHODS: We performed a retrospective, single-center analysis of patients with APS who were followed up from 1980 to 2011. Of these patients, only those who fulfilled the Sydney criteria for APS were included. Patients with APS that manifested with PH were called the PHAPS group. The rest of the patients with APS served as controls. Clinical manifestations were compared between the PHAPS group and controls. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients fulfilled the criteria for APS. Thirteen experienced PH and were included in the PHAPS group. Seventy-five percent of the patients with PHAPS and 22% of the controls had mitral valve disease (p = 0.001). Central nervous system (CNS) involvement (cerebrovascular accident, seizures) was present in 61% and 16% of the patients with PHAPS and controls, respectively (p = 0.001). Skin involvement (livedo reticularis, chronic leg ulcers) was present in 54% and 8% of the patients with PHAPS and controls (p = 0.001). Pregnancy morbidity occurred in 87.5% and 32.5% of the patients with PHAPS and controls (p = 0.005). Ninety-two percent and 83% of the patients with PHAPS had high-titer immunoglobulin γ (IgG) anticardiolipin and β(2)-glycoprotein I IgG antibodies compared to 43% and 30% of the controls (p = 0.002, p < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Patients with PHAPS were more likely than controls to have mitral valve disease, skin disease, CNS involvement, and pregnancy morbidity as well as high-titer APS. PHAPS seems to be a unique subgroup of all patients with APS.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".