MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412091567 · doi:10.1002/acr.25599

Development of the 2023 <scp>ACR</scp> / <scp>EULAR</scp> Antiphospholipid Syndrome Classification Criteria, Phase <scp>III</scp> ‐C Report: Assessment of Patient Scenarios (Derivation Cohort) and Refinement of Definitions

2025· article· en· W4412091567 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Medha Barbhaiya, Stéphane Zuily, Deanna Jannat‐Khah, Mary‐Carmen Amigo, Danieli Andrade, Tadej Avčin, María Laura Bertolaccini, D. Ware Branch, N. Costedoat‐Chalumeau, Guilherme Ramires de Jesús, Katrien Devreese, David García, José A. Gómez‐Puerta, Françis Guillemin, Steven R. Levine, Roger A. Levy, Michael D. Lockshin, Thomas L. Ortel, Michelle Petri, Giovanni Sanna, Savino Sciascia, Surya V. Seshan, Maria G. Tektonidou, Denis Wahl, Rohan Willis, Cécile Yelnik, Alison Hendry, Ray Naden, Karen H. Costenbader, Doruk Erkan

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis Care & Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesUniversity of California, San DiegoNational Institutes of HealthUniversité de ParisUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUniversidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroUniversità degli Studi di FirenzeUniversità degli Studi di MilanoHadassah Medical OrganizationUniversidad de CórdobaUniversity of New South WalesUniversity of AlbertaUniversidad Nacional de CórdobaBritish Heart FoundationUniversité de LorraineUniversity of OttawaTexas Children's HospitalHospital for Special SurgeryRheumatology Research FoundationYale University
KeywordsMedicineAntiphospholipid syndromeLupus anticoagulantConfidence intervalInternal medicinePoisson regressionRelative riskAntibodyCohortImmunologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective The 2023 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/EULAR antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification criteria aim to identify patients with a high likelihood of APS for research. Phases I/II of our four‐phase methodologic approach resulted in 27 candidate criteria organized in clinical and laboratory domains. Here, we summarize phase III efforts to reduce and refine criteria using patient scenarios. Methods Using standardized definitions for candidate criteria, the Steering Committee collected antiphospholipid antibody (aPL)–positive cases referred for “suspected APS.” Treating physicians assessed APS case likelihood using a Likert scale. Poisson regression calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to quantify the direction and size of the association of candidate criteria with “highly likely” versus “equivocal or unlikely” APS, which guided Steering Committee candidate criteria refinement and organization. Results We collected 314 suspected APS cases (137 [44%] highly likely and 177 [56%] equivocal/unlikely APS). Provoking venous thromboembolism (VTE) or arterial thrombosis (AT) risk factors reduced the size of the association with highly likely APS (RR 4.31 [95% CI 2.11–8.78] to RR 1.56 [95% CI 0.89–2.75] for VTE and RR 3.48 [95% CI 1.91–6.32] to RR 1.64 [95% CI 0.77–3.51] for AT). Persistent lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin IgG antibody ≥40 U, and anti–β 2 ‐glycoprotein‐I IgG antibody ≥40 U were positively associated with highly likely APS (all P < 0.05). Eventually, items within eight additive and independent clinical and laboratory domains were refined. Conclusion Referred suspected APS cases provided insight into associations of individual candidate criteria with APS likelihood. RR analyses helped refine items and organize the draft classification system into eight additive and independent clinical and laboratory domains.

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)0.196
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.179
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1960.179
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.321 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthritis Care & Research→Same topicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research→French-language works237,207→