Bibliographic record
Abstract
The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is defined by venous or arterial thrombosis and/or pregnancy morbidity in patients with persistent presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs). Catastrophic APS is the most severe form of APS, which is associated with rapid development of microvascular thrombosis resulting in multiorgan failure in patients with aPLs. Patients with APS and catastrophic APS are recognized to have a high risk of recurrent thrombosis that can occur despite anticoagulant therapy. Although antithrombotic therapy remains the mainstay of treatment, bleeding manifestations can complicate management and contribute to increased morbidity. Patients with persistently elevated aPL levels, particularly those who exhibit positive testing for lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin antibodies, and anti-β2GPI antibodies (triple positivity), appear to be at increased risk for thrombosis and pregnancy complications, whereas isolated positivity for aPLs appears to be associated with low risk. Recognizing that patients with APS have different thrombotic risk profiles may assist clinicians in assessing the risks and benefits of anticoagulation. The optimal type, intensity, and duration of anticoagulation in the treatment of APS remain controversial, particularly for arterial thrombosis and recurrent thrombosis. Future studies that delineate thrombotic risk in APS and evaluate current and novel anticoagulants as well as nonanticoagulant therapies are required.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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".