The Diagnosis of the Antiphospholipid Syndrome in Our Medical University Center for the Year 2007.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Abstract 5068 Introduction The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is associated with arterial and venous thrombosis and with obstetrical complications. According to the recommendations published in 2006, the diagnosis of SAP requires at least one clinical manifestation and, at least, one abnormal laboratory test: lupus anticoagulant (LA), anti-cardiolipin antibodies (ACL) or anti-B2-Glycoprotein antibodies (anti-B2GP1). More, the abnormal test has to be repeated and still abnormal 3 months later. In this study, we evaluated the process leading to a diagnosis of APS in our hospital during a whole year period. The clinicians had previously received a copy of published recommendations. Method We registered the identification number of all patients tested for 1 or more test (LA, ACL, anti-B2-GP1) in our laboratory during the year 2007. We then, retrospectively, analyzed the medical files of the patients who had their medical evaluation in our Center. We retained the following data: sex, age, symptoms at the presentation, final diagnosis, results of the specific tests for APS with the interval between the positive tests and the control tests. Results During 2007, 331 patients were tested for APS in our laboratory. We analyzed the medical files of 259 patients, 184 women and 75 men, with a mean age of 43,9 years. The indications for testing were: venous thrombosis (36, 7%), arterial thrombosis (14,3%), obstetrical complications (15,7%), collagenosis (17%), prolonged TTPa (3,1%), others (13,9%). In the laboratory, we found 91 positive tests in 70 patients. For 5 patients, all the three tests were positive. Only 48 positive tests were controlled after a period of 6 to 12 weeks. In total, 24 patients had at least one positive and controlled test; from them, 10 had all the criteria for the APS and 13 had abnormal tests without the clinical criteria for the APS. Conclusion In this study, 3, 9% of tested patients had the diagnostic criteria for the APS. The indications for ordering the tests seemed adequate in 86% of the cases. Only 52.7% of the positive tests were controlled. We have modified our interpretation of the positive tests, suggesting a control after 3 months. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".