Factors associated with first thrombosis in patients presenting with obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome (<scp>APS</scp>) in the <scp>APS</scp> Alliance for Clinical Trials and International Networking Clinical Database and Repository: a retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the subsequent rate of thrombosis among women with obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome (Ob-APS) in a multicentre database of antiphospholipid antibody (aPL)-positive patients, and the clinical utility of the adjusted Global Antiphospholipid Syndrome Score (aGAPSS), a validated tool to assess the likelihood of developing new thrombosis, in this group of patients. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: The Antiphospholipid Syndrome Alliance for Clinical Trials and International Networking Clinical Database and Repository. POPULATION: Women with Ob-APS. METHODS: Comparison of clinical and laboratory characteristics and measurement of aGAPSS in women with Ob-APS, with or without thrombosis, after initial pregnancy morbidity (PM). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Risk factors for thrombosis and aGAPSS. RESULTS: Of 550 patients, 126 had Ob-APS; 74/126 (59%) presented with thrombosis, and 47 (63%) of these women developed thrombosis after initial PM, in a mean time of 7.6 ± 8.2 years (4.9/100 patient years). Younger age at diagnosis of Ob-APS, additional cardiovascular risk factors, superficial vein thrombosis, heart valve disease, and multiple aPL positivity increased the risk of first thrombosis after PM. Women with thrombosis after PM had a higher aGAPSS compared with women with Ob-APS alone [median 11.5 (4-16) versus 9 (4-13); P = 0.0089]. CONCLUSION: Based on a retrospective analysis of our multicentre aPL database, 63% of women with Ob-APS developed thrombosis after initial obstetric morbidity; additional thrombosis risk factors, selected clinical manifestations, and high-risk aPL profile increased the risk. Women with subsequent thrombosis after Ob-APS had a higher aGAPSS at entry to the registry. We believe that aGAPSS is a valid tool to improve risk stratification in aPL-positive women. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: More than 60% of women with obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome had thrombosis after initial pregnancy morbidity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".