MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7033879296

The role of anti-phospholipid antibodies in pregnancy loss /

2004· dissertation· en· W7033879296 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2004
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSlime Mold and Myxomycetes Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchArthritis SocietyMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
KeywordsPregnancyLupus anticoagulantAntibodyMonoclonal antibodyFetusAntiphospholipid syndrome
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recurrent pregnancy loss is associated with anti-phospholipid antibodies (aPL), in particular in women with anti-phospholipid syndrome. aPL are a large family of autoantibodies, directed against phospholipids and phospholipid-binding proteins (e.g., prothrombin and beta2-glycoprotein I). Although the association between aPL and recurrent pregnancy loss is well documented, little is known about which aPL subset is responsible. To address this, we characterized a panel of six murine monoclonal aPL, which were subsequently administered to pregnant mice via passive transfer. While both anti-beta2GPI antibodies evaluated caused significant increase in fetal resorption, the effects of anti-PT antibodies varied from no effect to increased pregnancy loss. Similarly, neither lupus anticoagulant activity nor murine cross-reactivity predetermined aPL pathogenicity. We conclude that there is no obvious common reactivity between the aPL capable of increasing pregnancy loss, suggesting that a combination of reactivities, rather than one aPL specificity in particular, may lead to aPL-mediated pregnancy loss.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 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
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicSlime Mold and Myxomycetes ResearchFrench-language works237,207