MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2414615690 · doi:10.5527/wjn.v4.i5.528

Lupus-associated thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura-like microangiopathy

2015· article· en· W2414615690 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Blum, Geoffrey Blake

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Nephrology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicComplement system in diseases
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThrombotic thrombocytopenic purpuraMedicineThrombotic microangiopathyLupus nephritisSystemic lupus erythematosusADAMTS13MicroangiopathyNephrotic syndromeAntiphospholipid syndromeThrombocytopenic purpuraRenal biopsyInternal medicineImmunologyGastroenterologyBiopsyEndocrinologyThrombosisPlateletDiabetes mellitus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently reported cases of lupus complicated by a thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP)-like syndrome suggest a survival benefit to early treatment with plasma exchange. The following is a report of the eighth such case in the last ten years. A 44-year-old lady known for lupus presented with the nephrotic syndrome and a renal biopsy was consistent with class 4G lupus nephritis. She was given high-dose steroids and cytotoxic therapy, but her induction therapy was complicated by the classic pentad of TTP. She was subsequently treated with another course of high-dose steroids, a different cytotoxic agent, and plasma exchange, with clinical resolution shortly thereafter. Similar to seven recently reported cases of microangiopathy in lupus, this lady's TTP-like syndrome improved dramatically after initiation of plasma exchange, despite not having a severely deficient ADAMTS13. This has implications on both current clinical practice and on the pathogenesis of TTP-like syndromes in lupus.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of NephrologySame topicComplement system in diseasesFrench-language works237,207