Characteristics of Patients With Antiphospholipid Antibody Positivity in the <scp>APS ACTION</scp> International Clinical Database and Repository
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To describe the baseline characteristics of patients with positivity for antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs) who were enrolled in an international registry, the Antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS) Alliance for Clinical Trials and International Networking (APS ACTION) clinical database and repository, overall and by clinical and laboratory subtypes. Methods The APS ACTION registry includes adults who persistently had positivity for aPLs. We evaluated baseline sociodemographic and aPL‐related (APS classification criteria and “non‐criteria”) characteristics of patients overall and in subgroups (aPL‐positive without APS, APS overall, thrombotic APS only, obstetric APS only, and both thrombotic APS/obstetric APS). We assessed baseline characteristics of patients tested for the presence of three aPLs (lupus anticoagulant [LAC] test, anticardiolipin antibody [aCL], and anti–β 2 ‐glycoprotein I [anti‐β 2 GPI]) antibodies by aPL profiles (LAC only, single, double, and triple aPL positivity). Results The 804 aPL‐positive patients assessed in the present study had a mean age of 45 ± 13 years, were 74% female, and 68% White; additionally, 36% had other systemic autoimmune diseases. Of these 804 aPL‐positive patients, 80% were classified as having APS (with 55% having thrombotic APS, 9% obstetric APS, and 15% thrombotic APS/obstetric APS). In the overall cohort, 71% had vascular thrombosis, 50% with a history of pregnancy had obstetric morbidity, and 56% had experienced at least one non‐criteria manifestation. Among those with three aPLs tested (n = 660), 42% were triple aPL–positive. While single–, double–, and triple aPL–positive subgroups had similar frequencies of vascular, obstetric, and non‐criteria events, these events were lowest in the single aPL subgroup, which consisted of aCLs or anti‐β 2 GPI only. Conclusion Our study demonstrates the heterogeneity of aPL‐related clinical manifestations and laboratory profiles in a multicenter international cohort. Within single aPL positivity, LAC may be a major contributor to clinical events. Future prospective analyses, using standardized core laboratory aPL tests, will help clarify aPL risk profiles and improve risk stratification.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".