Relationship between osteonecrosis and antiphospholipid antibodies in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Osteonecrosis (ON) is characterised by the destruction of the normal blood supply to the bone tissue. ON is the main cause of disability in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Studies have reported the existence of many risk factors for SLE complicated by ON, including the use of high-dose glucocorticoids and high disease activity. The correlation between antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs) and ON in SLE has been controversial. We aim to conduct a systematic review of the literature related to SLE, aseptic ON and aPLs, to provide a reference for the clinical screening of high-risk patients and for early prevention. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The following six databases will be searched: MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Wan-Fang Database and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. The database searches will not be restricted by date. Case-control studies, cohort studies or observational studies that compare aPLs between SLE patients with and without ON will be considered eligible. Articles published in English and Chinese will be included. Two researchers will independently perform the processes of study selection, data extraction and study quality assessment. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale will be used to assess the quality of the retrieved studies. A meta-analysis will be performed after screening the studies. Data will be analysed using ORs for dichotomous data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required because this systematic review will use published data. The systematic review will be electronically disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication or conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020209637.
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 | 0.041 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.005 |
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".