Antiphospholipid antibodies and lower extremity peripheral arterial disease - a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite being an important risk factor for venous thromboembolism and ischaemic stroke, the role of antiphospholipid antibodies in patients with peripheral arterial disease remains a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association of persistently elevated antiphospholipid antibodies and lower extremity peripheral arterial disease. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of electronic databases including MEDLINE, EUROPUBMED and EMBASE to assess the prevalence of antiphospholipid antibodies in patients with lower extremity peripheral arterial disease. Case-control studies were included if they reported the prevalence of antiphospholipid antibodies in patients with lower extremity peripheral arterial disease. Two reviewers (FV and EG) independently assessed the eligibility of all articles. The primary outcome measure was the odds ratio (OR) for the prevalence of antiphospholipid antibodies patients with lower extremity peripheral arterial disease, along with the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Our initial electronic search identified 128 relevant abstracts, of which two studies were included. Antiphospholipid antibodies were found in 50/571 patients with lower extremity peripheral arterial disease and 13/490 of the controls, OR 3.32 (95 % CI = 1.49 to 7.4). In those with critical limb ischaemia, the prevalence of antiphospholipid antibodies was elevated compared to controls, pooled OR 4.78 (95 % CI = 2.37 to 9.65). CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that the prevalence of persistently elevated levels of antiphospholipid antibodies is increased in patients with lower extremity peripheral diseases when compared to healthy controls, especially in those with critical limb ischaemia.
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 | 0.011 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".