THE CLINICAL AND IMMUNOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF ANTIPHOSPHOLIPID ANTIBODIES IN PATIENTS WITH SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PV018 / #802 Poster Topic: AS03 - Antiphospholipid Syndrome Background/Purpose Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is an autoimmune systemic disease characterized by the presence of the variety of autoantibodies. Antiphospholipid antibodies (APL) are new criteria for classifying lupus disease and their positivity often indicates the association with secondary antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). The aim of the study was to evaluate the frequency, the clinical and immunological associations of antiphospholipid antibodies in patients with SLE. Methods Our study included 156 patients diagnosed and followed up for lupus. The APL were detected by an immuno-enzyme technique (ELISA). Results In our study, 19% of patients (N=29) had 1 of the positive APL. Anti cardiolipines antibodies (aCL) were present in 12% (n=18), while anti-β2GP1 antibodies were positive in 13% of patients (n=20). The frequencies of both IgG and IgM isotypes of aCL and anti β2GP1 were 5%, 7%, 4% and 10% respectively. The study of clinical and immunological associations revealed a positive association between the presence of anti-β2GP1 and neurological involvement (25% vs 7%, P = 0.020, OR=4.70), and between anti-β2GP1 and lupus nephritis (45% vs 68%, P = 0.044, OR=0.39). Moreover, a significant association was observed between the presence of aCL and hypocomplementemia of C3 and C4 fractions (P=0.012, OR=3.48). Conclusions APL positivity is quite common in SLE patients. Their presence should suggest a possible association with secondary APS and monitoring of patients for thrombotic risk or obstetric complications.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".