MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

GALECTINS-1,3 AND 9 IN PATIENTS WITH SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS: ARE THERE ANY LINKS WITH DISEASE ACTIVITY OR IRREVERSIBLE ORGAN DAMAGE?

2025· article· en· W4410715514 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Liubov Kondrateva, T. A. Panafidina, Yulia Gorbunova, М. Е. Диатроптов, А. С. Авдеева, Т. В. Попкова

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicGalectins and Cancer Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSystemic diseaseSystemic lupus erythematosusDiseaseAutoimmune diseaseConnective tissue diseaseLupus erythematosusGalectinImmunopathologyOrgan systemDermatologyImmunologyPathologyAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PV031 / #294 Poster Topic: AS04 - Biomarkers Background/Purpose To compare serum concentrations of galectins -1, 3 and 9 in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and healthy women, and to identify the relationship of these biomarkers with disease activity and damage index. Methods Seventy-nine women with SLE (according to the criteria of SLICC/ACR 2012) were included in the study. The median age was 32 [26;40] years, the median disease duration was 24 [1;144] months. High SLE activity (SLEDAI-2K>10) was recorded in 18 (22.8%), moderate (SLEDAI-2K= 5-10) – in 34 (43.0%), low activity or remission (SLEDAI-2K = 0-4) – in 27 (34.2%) patients. The SLICC damage index ranged from 0 to 6 (median [IQR] = 0 [0-1]). Glucocorticoids (GC) were received by 62 (78.5%) with median daily dose of prednisone 10 [5-20] mg, hydroxychloroquine – 60 (75.9%), immunosuppressants – 24 (30.4%) (cyclophosphamide – 2 (2.5%), mycophenolate mofetil – 16 (20.3%), azathioprine – 3 (3.8%), methotrexate – 3 (3.8%)), biological agents – 7 (8.9%) (rituximab – 5 (6.3%), belimumab – 2 (2.5%)), immunoglobulin – 3 (3.8%) patients. The control group included 21 women without immune-inflammatory rheumatic diseases, matched by age with patients with SLE. Serum concentrations of galectins-1,3,9 were determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (Cloud-Clone Corp., China). Results Galectins-1,3 and 9 levels in SLE and in the control group are shown in Table 1. The use of GC, hydroxychloroquine, immunosuppressants and biological agents did not affect galectins levels. In SLE, galectin-1 correlated with SLEDAI-2K (r = 0.24, p = 0.033), hemoglobin (r = -0,23, p = 0,039), platelet count (r = -0,22, p =0,049), anti-Sm (r = 0,3, p = 0,007). Galectin-3 correlated with damage index (r = 0,29, p = 0,03), C-reactive protein (r = 0,37, p = 0,0046). Galectin-9 correlated with hemoglobin (r = -0,24, p = 0,034), anti-dsDNA (r = 0,31, p = 0,006). Clinical manifestations that occurred in the SLE group with a frequency of >10% were increased a-ds-DNA – in 54 (68.4%) patients, hypocomplementemia – in 52 (65.8%), rash - 34 (43.0%), arthritis – in 32 (40.5%), alopecia – in 24 (30.4%), nephritis – in 20 (25.3%), serositis – in 14 (17.7%). Galectin-1 levels were higher in patients with pleuritis or pericarditis than without serositis (2.5 [0.98-6.65] ng/ml vs 1.27 [0.91-1.67] ng/ml, p = 0,048). Similar results were obtained also for galectin-3 (1.63 [0.41-2,38] ng/ml vs 1.07 [0.87-1,33] ng/ml, p = 0,003). There were no differences in galectins levels for other common manifestations of SLE. Table 1. Galectins-1,3 and 9 levels in SLE and in the control group Conclusions SLE patients had higher serum galectin-1 levels and a trend toward elevated galectin-3 levels, while galectin-9 concentrations were similar to healthy women. Galectin-1 levels were linearly related to disease activity, and galectin-9 levels were linearly related to irreversible organ damage, although the associations were weak. Of the most common clinical manifestations of SLE, only serositis was associated with an increase in galectins-1 and 3. Both galectin-1 and galectin-9 were also correlated with some hematological and immunological parameters.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicGalectins and Cancer BiologyFrench-language works237,207