SaO046PREGNANCY IN LUPUS NEPHRITIS: RESULTS OF A MULTICENTER PROSPECTIVE OBSERVATIONAL STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction and Aims: The aims of this multicenter prospective study in pregnant patients with lupus nephritis (LN) were the evaluation of: a) the risks of maternal and fetal complications b) the predictors of these complications. Methods: From 2004 to 2012 pregnant patients with LN followed in some nephrological and rheumatological Italian Unit were included in this study. Results: Sixty-two pregnancies in 53 women (mean age 33±4.54 at pregnancy) with LN were included. LN was in remission at pregnancy in 49 patients (79%), and active in 13 patients (21%, serum creatinine 0.7±0.2mg/dl and proteinuria 1±0.7g/die), low complement was present in 39%, and arterial hypertension in 11.3%, antiphospholipid antibodies positivity in 38.9%. The mean BMI was 22±4.1Kg/m2. Maternal outcome: Six preeclampsia (9.7%) and 14 renal flares (22.6%) occurred (9 in patients with inactive and 5 in active lupus nephritis,13 were proteinuric flares and 1 nephritic flare. (9.7%),Altogether a maternal complications occurred in 21 pregnancies (34.4%). Fetal outcome: 58 pregnancies ended in 60 live births (93.5%);19 were delivered preterm, 14 live births (23%) were small for gestation age, 4 pregnancies ended in miscarriages. Predictors: The occurrence of maternal complications were significantly correlated with the presence of arterial hypertension (30%vs2.4% p=0.011) and with the BMI (24.7±5.3 vs 21.8±3). The presence of arterial hypertension was predictive of preeclampsia ( 50% vs 7%; P= 0.008) and of preterm delivery (28.5% vs 2.5% P= 0.015).
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".