MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A systematic review of the association between anti-β-2 glycoprotein I antibodies and APS manifestations

2021· review· en· W3199392341 on OpenAlexaff
Debbie Jiang, Wendy Lim, Mark Crowther, David García

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood Advances · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsAntibodyGlycoproteinAssociation (psychology)MedicineImmunologyComputational biologyBiologyPsychologyMolecular biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anti-β-2 glycoprotein I antibodies (anti-B2GPI) are often cited as the major pathogenically relevant antibody in antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), but it is unclear if there is clinical evidence to support this theory. We performed a systematic review to determine if immunoglobulin G anti-B2GPI positivity was independently associated with thrombotic and/or obstetric manifestations of APS. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov electronic databases through April 2020 for prospective studies that met prespecified design criteria. Of 4758 articles identified through computer-assisted search, 4 studies examining obstetric outcomes and 2 studies examining thrombotic outcomes were included for qualitative assessment. The presence of anti-B2GPI had only a weak independent association with thrombosis and was, at best, inconsistently associated with obstetric complications. A quantitative assessment could not be performed because of study heterogeneity. The overall quality of the evidence was very low. Although anti-B2GPI are commonly thought to mediate APS manifestations, clinical evidence is lacking with very low-quality data to support a weak association with thrombosis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.755

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations31
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood AdvancesSame topicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchFrench-language works237,207