Presence of Anticardiolipin Antibodies in Patients with Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growing evidences are supporting towards the involvement of antiphospholipid antibodies [aPLs e.g., lupus anticoagulant (LA), anticardiolipin (aCL) and anti-β2-glycoprotein I (anti-β2-GPI) antibodies] in various neurological manifestations including migraine, epilepsy and dementia in the presence or absence of autoimmune diseases such as antiphospholipid syndrome or systemic lupus erythematosus. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the presence of aPLs in dementia patients without a diagnosis of any autoimmune disease. Electronic databases (e.g., PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar) were searched without any year or language restrictions and based on the inclusion criteria, nine prospective case-control studies assessing only aCL were included involving 372 dementia patients and 337 healthy controls. No studies were found to assess the presence of both LA or anti-β2-GPI. The study-specific odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects model. We observed the prevalence of aCL in dementia was higher (32.80%) than that of controls (9.50%) e.g., 3.45 times higher risk of presenting with dementia than the controls, and significant presence of aCL antibodies was detected in dementia patients compared to controls (OR: 4.94, 95% CI: 2.66 - 9.16, p < 0.00001; I² = 32%, p = 0.16). Publication bias was not observed from Egger’s (p = 0.081) and Begg’s tests (p = 0.180). Based on the study quality assessment using modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for case-control studies, seven of nine studies were of high methodological quality scoring ≥ 7 (median value). In summary, aCL antibodies were significantly present in dementia patients suggesting that aCL antibodies are generated due to the autoimmune-derived effects of dementia or there might be a potential causative role of this autoantibody in dementia pathogenesis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".