MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158346385 · doi:10.1177/0961203308089443

Association of killer cell immunoglobulin–like receptor genotypes with vascular arterial events and anticardiolipin antibodies in patients with lupus

2008· article· en· W2158346385 on OpenAlexaffabout
SMA Toloza, FJ Pellett, Vinod Chandran, D Nieto Ibanez, Murray B. Urowitz, DD Gladman

Bibliographic record

VenueLupus · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune Cell Function and Interaction
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVasculitisInternal medicineImmunologyAntibodyGastroenterologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To determine whether killer cell immunologlobulin-like receptor (KIR) genotypes are associated with vasculitis, vascular arterial events or anticardiolipin (aCL) antibodies in patients with lupus. A total of 304 patients followed prospectively at the University of Toronto Lupus Clinic were assessed for the occurrence of vasculitis and vascular arterial events. Molecular HLA-C and KIR (presence or absence of KIR2DL1, 2DL2, 2DL3, 2DS1 and 2DS2) genotyping were performed. Chi-square and logistic regression were used to analyse association between KIR genes and vascular arterial events and aCL antibodies. In patients with vascular arterial events, there was a significant increase in KIR2DS2 (60% vs 45%, P = 0.02) and in KIR2DL2 (62% vs 47%, P = 0.01) compared with patients without events. There was no increase in activating KIR genotypes in patients with vasculitis. In patients with aCL antibodies, significant increases were seen in KIR2DS2 (54% vs 41%, P = 0.03) and KIR2DL2 (58% vs 41%, P = 0.003), but KIR2DL3 was decreased (87% vs 95%, P = 0.03). Logistic regression confirmed independent association of KIR2DS2 with vascular arterial events. We found an increase in KIR2DS2 in lupus patients with vascular arterial events, but not in patients with vasculitis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.169 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLupusSame topicImmune Cell Function and InteractionFrench-language works237,207