MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2792153461 · doi:10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjx180.470

P343 Levels of the anticoagulant and anti-inflammatory protein S (PROS1) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) relationship with disease activity, IBD disease patterns, and C4-binding protein (C4BP)

2018· article· en· W2792153461 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alicia M. Sambuelli, Paula Chavero, Gabriela de Larrañaga, Andrea Emilse Errasti, Lisina Tessone, Silvia Negreira, Narejos Pérez Silvia, Maricel I. Bellicoso, Sergio P. Huernos, S Goncalves, Pablo R. Tirado, E A Carrera Silva, Carla V. Rothlin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtein SMedicineInternal medicineInflammatory bowel diseaseGastroenterologyUlcerative colitisCrohn's diseaseImmunologyAnticoagulantC-reactive proteinDiseaseThrombosisInflammation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD) show an increased risk of thrombosis. PROS1 is a well-established anticoagulant. Plasma PROS1 circulates in a free form that can function as an anticoagulant or in complex with the complement C4b-binding protein (C4BP). Interestingly, PROS1 has also emerged as a potent anti-inflammatory mediator due to its function as agonist of the TAM receptor tyrosine kinases (Rothlin 2015). Here, we aimed to test if IBD or subsets of IBD are associated with reduced amounts of the anticoagulant and anti-inflammatory protein, PROS1. AIMS: to measure and compare free PROS1 and total C4BP levels in CD, UC and healthy controls and their relationship with activity status (Determined for indexes: CDAI, Mayo) and disease patterns (Montreal). Free PROS1 and C4BP (immunoturburbimetry, Liatest, Stago, France) were determined in 103 IBD patients (45 M, 58 F, UC: n = 66, CD n = 37) and 30 healthy controls (18 M, 12 F), mean ages: 37.5 ± 15.6, 41.4 ± 14.6, 38.2 ± 12.2, respectively. Mean PROS1 levels in CD (89.9. ± 28.0) were significantly lower compared with controls (109.6 ± 23.9, p = 0.0019) and UC (104.4 ± 27.0, p = 0.0076). Within the CD group, a statistical difference vs. controls was observed in patients with active disease (n = 25, levels 84.9 ± 24.1, p = 0.0004), but not in patients in remission (n = 12: 100.2 ± 33.5). Moreover, the moderate–severe subset (n = 21), presented the lowest levels (84.0 ± 25.9) vs. controls p = 0.0006. In UC, PROS1 levels did not show differences between subsets (42 active, 24 remission: 101.1 ± 26.3 and 110.0 ± 27, respectively) or with controls. CD patterns (behaviour, location) and UC extent (12 proctitis, 54 more extensive) did not show significant differences. C4BP levels were also found to be decreased in CD (global sample, active patients, severe-moderate subsets: 98.6 ± 14.4, 98.8 ± 12.0, 98.4 ± 12.6, 109.9 ± 8.8, p = 0.0004, p = 0.0008, p = 0.0014 vs. controls, respectively). Unlike PROS1, C4BP in UC (102.8 ± 9.9) was lower than in controls (p = 0.0010) mainly in severe–moderate activity (p = 0.0322), and besides, no statistical differences were observed between UC and CD. (1) Free PROS1 levels were significantly lower in active CD vs. controls (especially in the severe–moderate activity subsets), but in the case of UC the levels were indistinguishable from controls. On contrary, C4BP levels were reduced in both diseases, particularly in patients with higher disease activity. (2) Decrease of Free PROS1 in CD, was not secondary to a potential C4BP-bound PROS1 for C4BP increase. (3) Future studies will aim to test if reduced levels of PROS1 in circulation might not only contribute to the increased risk of thrombosis but also to the enhanced inflammation in CD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Crohn s and Colitis→Same topicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→