Lack of association between antiphospholipid antibody and WHO classification in lupus nephritis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the prevalence of antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) in patients with biopsy proven lupus nephritis (LN) and to investigate if there is any association between the presence of serum aPL and WHO classes. METHODS: Seventy-one patients (68 female and 3 male, mean age 31 years, range 10-67) meeting ACR criteria for the classification of SLE and with biopsy proven LN were included. For every patient, we evaluated anticardiolipin antibodies, lupus anticoagulant and renal biopsy classified according to the WHO classification criteria (activity and chronicity scores were included). Twenty-four hour urinary protein at the time of biopsy was considered. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients had class V LN, 27 had class IV, 11 had class III, 3 had class II and 1 had class I. Twenty-seven (40.2%) patients were aPL positive. The prevalence of aPL positive patients was 45% in class V, 33.3% in class IV and 45.6% in class III. We did not find any significant association between the presence of aPL and the WHO class (p = 0.61 with class V, p = 0.31 with class IV and p = 0.73 with class III). There was no association between the presence of aPL and activity (p = 0.52) or chronicity scores (p = 0.42). We also did not find any association between proteinuria and the presence of aPL (p = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that there is no association between the presence of aPL and the different WHO classes. The presence of these antibodies does not seem to be related to histological activity or the chronicity of lupus nephritis nor proteinuria.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".