MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386687326 · doi:10.37897/rjr.2023.2.4

Consequences of antiphospholipid syndrome in pregnancy - A review

2023· review· en· W4386687326 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Astrit M. Gashi

Bibliographic record

VenueRomanian Journal of Rheumatology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntiphospholipid syndromePregnancyMedicinePreeclampsiaLupus anticoagulantAutoantibodyImmunologyAntibodyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and objectives. Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune disorder characterized by the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) in the blood. Antiphospholipid syndrome is defined by the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies, including lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin antibodies, and anti-beta-2 glycoprotein I antibodies. These antibodies target phospholipids-binding proteins and can leading to various clinical manifestations and complications of thromboembolic nature. Also, the antiphospholipid syndrome is strongly linked to adverse pregnancy outcomes, including recurrent miscarriages, fetal growth restriction, preeclampsia, and preterm birth. Placental dysfunction, impaired blood flow to the fetus, and thrombotic events within the placenta contribute to these complications. The purpose of this review was the research of consequences of antiphospholipid syndrome in pregnancy. Materials and methods. This research involves systematically reviewing and analyzing existing literature on consequences of antiphospholipid syndrome in pregnancy. For relevant literature, academic databases like Pub Med, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were used. Search terms and keywords that were used to search for relevant literature in databases was: antiphospholipid syndrome; pregnancy; consequences, and Boolean operator (AND, OR). The criteria used to include literature in this review were; publication date, language, study objectives, study design, research methodology, key findings, and relevance to my research question. For citation and referencing were used the appropriate citation style (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard and Vancouver). Results. The main findings in this review were that antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) of characterizing by dysregulation of the immune system and the production of autoantibodies. These autoantibodies can target various cells and proteins, leading to inflammation, tissue damage, and disrupted physiological processes. This syndrome is associated with a prothrombotic state, increasing the risk of blood clots in veins and arteries. Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) can affect multiple organs and systems, including the skin, kidneys, heart, and central nervous system. Thrombotic events can occur in various organs, leading to deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, strokes, and other thromboembolic complications. Also, the antiphospholipid syndrome is strongly linked to adverse pregnancy outcomes, including recurrent miscarriages, fetal growth restriction, preeclampsia, and preterm birth. Placental dysfunction, impaired blood flow to the fetus, and thrombotic events within the placenta contribute to these complications. Manifestations may include skin rashes (livedo reticularis), kidney involvement (glomerulonephritis), heart valve abnormalities, and neurological symptoms etc. Conclusions. We come to the conclusion that it is essential for the pregnant women with antiphospholipid syndrome to receive close monitoring and appropriate management to reduce the risk and severity of these pregnancy complications. This may include interventions such as anticoagulation therapy, regular prenatal care, monitoring of fetal growth and wellbeing, and prompt management of complications. A multidisciplinary approach involving obstetricians, rheumatologists, and other healthcare professionals is often necessary to optimize outcomes for both the mother and the baby.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.302 · 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
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRomanian Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research→French-language works237,207→