MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386209525 · doi:10.1002/art.42624

The 2023 <scp>ACR</scp>/<scp>EULAR</scp> Antiphospholipid Syndrome Classification Criteria

2023· article· en· W4386209525 on OpenAlexaff
Medha Barbhaiya, Stéphane Zuily, Ray Naden, Alison Hendry, Florian Manneville, Mary‐Carmen Amigo, Zahir Amoura, Danieli Andrade, Laura Andréoli, Bahar Artım-Esen, Tatsuya Atsumi, Tadej Avčin, H. Michael Belmont, María Laura Bertolaccini, D. Ware Branch, Graziela Carvalheiras, Alessandro Casini, Ricard Cervera, Hannah Cohen, N. Costedoat‐Chalumeau, Mark Crowther, Guilherme Ramires de Jesús, Aurélien Delluc, Sheetal Desai, Maria De Sancho, Katrien Devreese, Reyhan Diz Küçükkaya, Alí Duarte‐García, Camille Françès, David García, Jean‐Christophe Gris, Natasha Jordan, Rebecca Karp Leaf, Nina Kello, Jason S. Knight, Carl A. Laskin, Alfred Ian Lee, Kimberly Legault, Steve Levine, Roger A. Levy, Maarten Limper, Michael D. Lockshin, K Mayer-Pickel, Jack Musial, Pier Luigi Meroni, Giovanni Orsolini, Thomas L. Ortel, Vittorio Pengo, Michelle Petri, Guillermo Pons‐Estel, José A. Gómez‐Puerta, Quentin Raimboug, Robert Roubey, Giovanni Sanna, Surya V. Seshan, Savino Sciascia, Maria G. Tektonidou, Anǵela Tincani, Denis Wahl, Rohan Willis, Cécile Yelnik, Catherine Zuily, Françis Guillemin, Karen H. Costenbader, Doruk Erkan

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis & Rheumatology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
Canadian institutionsCReATe Fertility CentreOttawa HospitalUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
FundersRheumatology Research Foundation
KeywordsAntiphospholipid syndromeMedicineImmunologyAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To develop new antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification criteria with high specificity for use in observational studies and trials, jointly supported by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and EULAR. Methods This international multidisciplinary initiative included 4 phases: 1) Phase I, criteria generation by surveys and literature review; 2) Phase II, criteria reduction by modified Delphi and nominal group technique exercises; 3) Phase III, criteria definition, further reduction with the guidance of real‐world patient scenarios, and weighting via consensus‐based multicriteria decision analysis, and threshold identification; and 4) Phase IV, validation using independent adjudicators’ consensus as the gold standard. Results The 2023 ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria include an entry criterion of at least one positive antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) test within 3 years of identification of an aPL‐associated clinical criterion, followed by additive weighted criteria (score range 1–7 points each) clustered into 6 clinical domains (macrovascular venous thromboembolism, macrovascular arterial thrombosis, microvascular, obstetric, cardiac valve, and hematologic) and 2 laboratory domains (lupus anticoagulant functional coagulation assays, and solid‐phase enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays for IgG/IgM anticardiolipin and/or IgG/IgM anti–β 2 ‐glycoprotein I antibodies). Patients accumulating at least 3 points each from the clinical and laboratory domains are classified as having APS. In the validation cohort, the new APS criteria versus the 2006 revised Sapporo classification criteria had a specificity of 99% versu s 86%, and a sensitivity of 84% versus 99%. Conclusion These new ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria were developed using rigorous methodology with multidisciplinary international input. Hierarchically clustered, weighted, and risk‐stratified criteria reflect the current thinking about APS, providing high specificity and a strong foundation for future APS research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations431
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthritis & RheumatologySame topicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchFrench-language works237,207