Diretrizes para o tratamento da síndrome do anticorpo antifosfolipídeo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A síndrome do anticorpo antifosfolipídeo (SAF) é uma doença sistêmica autoimune caracterizada por trombose arterial e venosa, morbidade gestacional e presença de níveis séricos de anticorpos antifosfolipídeos elevados e persistentemente positivos. O tratamento da SAF ainda é sujeito a controvérsias, já que qualquer decisão terapêutica potencialmente irá confrontar-se com o risco de uma cobertura antitrombótica insuficiente ou com o risco excessivo associado à anticoagulação e seus principais efeitos adversos. Esta diretriz foi elaborada a partir de nove questões clínicas relevantes e relacionadas ao tratamento da SAF pela Comissão de Vasculopatias da Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia. O objetivo deste trabalho foi criar uma diretriz que incluísse as questões mais relevantes e controversas no tratamento da SAF, com base na melhor evidência científica disponível. As questões foram estruturadas por meio do P.I.C.O. (paciente, intervenção ou indicador, comparação e outcome/desfecho), o que possibilitou a geração de estratégias de busca da evidência nas principais bases primárias de informação científica (MEDLINE/Pubmed, Embase, Lilacs/ Scielo, Cochrane Library, Premedline via OVID). Também realizou-se busca manual da evidência e de teses (BDTD e IBICT). A evidência recuperada foi selecionada a partir da avaliação crítica, utilizando instrumentos (escores) discriminatórios de acordo com a categoria da questão terapêutica (JADAD para ensaios clínicos randomizados e New Castle Ottawa Scale para estudos não randomizados). Após definir os estudos potenciais para sustento das recomendações, eles foram selecionados pela força da evidência e pelo grau de recomendação, segundo a classificação de Oxford. The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a systemic autoimmune disease characterized by arterial and venous thrombosis, gestational morbidity and presence of elevated and persistently positive serum titers of antiphospholipid antibodies. The treatment of APS is still controversial, because any therapeutic decision potentially faces the risk of an insufficient or excessive antithrombotic coverage associated with anticoagulation and its major adverse effects. This guideline was elaborated from nine relevant clinical questions related to the treatment of APS by the Committee of Vasculopathies of the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology. Thus, this study aimed at establishing a guideline that included the most relevant and controversial questions in APS treatment, based on the best scientific evidence available. The questions were structured by use of the PICO (patient, intervention or indicator, comparison and outcome) process, enabling the generation of search strategies for evidence in the major primary scientific databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Lilacs, Scielo, Cochrane Library, Premedline via OVID). A manual search for evidence and theses was also conducted (BDTD and IBICT). The evidence retrieved was selected based on critical assessment by using discriminatory instruments (scores) according to the category of the therapeutic question (JADAD scale for randomized clinical trials and Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-randomized studies). After defining the potential studies to support the recommendations, they were selected according to level of evidence and grade of recommendation, according to the Oxford classification.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.015 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".