Serological biomarkers as risk factors of SLE-associated pulmonary arterial hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This article aims to determine the serological biomarkers which can be considered as risk factors of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE)-associated pulmonary arterial hypertension by a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods This study was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement. The search database included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Scopus. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for the quality assessment. The odds ratio was the primary measure of effect of the risk factors. Results Twelve studies were included in this meta-analysis. The results identified the anti-RNP antibody and anti-Sm antibody as risk factors for SLE-associated pulmonary arterial hypertension with the pooled odds ratios 3.68 (95% confidence interval 2.04-6.63, P < 0.0001) and 1.71 (95% confidence interval 1.06-2.76, P = 0.03), respectively. Conclusion Pulmonary arterial hypertension is a serious complication of SLE with a worse prognosis than SLE patients without pulmonary arterial hypertension. The early recognition of pulmonary arterial hypertension with transthoracic echocardiography routinely performed in SLE patients with risk factors is necessary, especially in Asian patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".