MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2980249817 · doi:10.1182/blood.v114.22.1314.1314

Diagnostic Utility of Platelet Secretion Testing by ATP Release Assays: Results From a Prospective Study of Individuals Referred for Bleeding Disorder Assessments.

2009· article· en· W2980249817 sur OpenAlexaff
Menaka Pai, Grace Wang, Karen A. Moffat, Jodi Seecharan, Yang Liu, Kathryn E. Webert, Nancy M. Heddle, Catherine P.M. Hayward

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePlatelet Disorders and Treatments
Établissements canadiensMcMaster UniversityHamilton Regional Laboratory Medicine Program
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPlateletPlatelet disorderMedicineProspective cohort studyInternal medicineThromboxane A2Blood Platelet DisordersEpinephrineGastroenterologyEndocrinologyPlatelet aggregation

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 1314 Poster Board I-338 Background Platelet secretion defects are a common type of inherited platelet disorder. Experts agree that ATP release assays are often helpful to assess for platelet secretion disorders among individuals with suspected bleeding problems. However, the diagnostic utility of ATP release assays has not been established, and it is unclear if the findings correlate with aggregation results. Our goal was to evaluate the incidence and spectrum of platelet release abnormalities in a prospective cohort of individuals referred for testing as part of a bleeding disorder assessment, and describe the diagnostic utility of platelet ATP release and its relationship to aggregation findings. Methods Data were analyzed for 40 healthy controls and 76 patients from a prospective cohort of individuals referred for bleeding disorder assessments. ATP release and light transmission aggregometry (LTA) were assessed by standardized methods, with validated reference intervals (derived by non-parametric analysis), using platelet-rich plasma adjusted to 250 × 109 platelets L−1 with autologous platelet poor plasma. ATP release was assessed using the Chronolog lumiaggregometer, as recommended, and a modified agonist panel (1.6 mM arachidonic acid, 1 uM thromboxane analogue U46619, 100 uM epinephrine, 6 uM epinephrine, 5 ug·mL−1 collagen, 1.25·g mL−1 collagen, 1 U·mL−1 thrombin, and 5 uM ADP). The test sensitivity and specificity for inherited platelet disorders were estimated and the likelihoods of detecting an inherited platelet disorder by ATP release (using different agonists or the agonist panel) were expressed as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Correlations between ATP release triggered by different agonists, and between ATP release and maximal aggregation with the same agonist, were expressed as Pearson correlation coefficients (ρ). Results Reduced ATP release with one or more agonists was more common among the referred individuals that a hematologist categorized as having a bleeding problem (n = 66; 45% abnormal) than among healthy controls (5% false positives, p < 0.0001). The likelihood of an inherited platelet disorder was high (OR 83, 95% CI 16 - 445) when ATP release was abnormal with one or more agonists, even when LTA results were normal (OR 56, 95% CI 10 - 318). Impaired ATP release with some agonists (e.g. 5 uM ADP and 100 uM epinephrine) could not be detected as the reference intervals did not have a measurable lower limit. Among other agonists, 1 U·mL−1 thrombin had the highest likelihood of detecting impaired ATP release due to an inherited platelet disorder (OR 32 compared to 17- 25 for other agonists). Receiver operator curve analyses indicated that an assessment of ATP release with the full panel, or a more limited panel of 4 agonists, had high specificity and moderate sensitivity for detecting inherited defects in platelet function. The predictive power was improved by considering results as continuous rather than categorical (normal/abnormal) variables, however, this required complex mathematical equations. Most abnormalities in ATP release due to common inherited platelet disorders were detected by a limited number of agonists in the panel. The optimal panel, with minimized false positive and false negative rates (5% and 18% respectively), included: 1 uM thromboxane analogue U46619, 6 uM epinephrine, 5.0 ug·mL−1 collagen, and 1 U·mL−1 thrombin. Among patient subjects and healthy controls, there was a significant correlation (ρ = 0.25 – 0.92; p values < 0.02) between the amount of ATP release induced by most agonists. Maximal aggregation and ATP release responses for each agonist did not correlate significantly among healthy controls, and showed only a weak correlation among patient subjects. Conclusions Like light transmission aggregometry, ATP release assays have important diagnostic utility for detecting impaired platelet function due to common inherited bleeding disorders. The poor correlation between ATP release and maximal platelet aggregation suggests that these tests are predominantly influenced by different parameters of platelet function. Our data on useful agonists for detecting impaired ATP release may prove helpful to laboratories that wish to optimize testing for common platelet disorders. The knowledge that platelet secretion assays are very helpful for bleeding disorder assessments should be translated into clinical practice. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,006

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,035
Tête enseignante GPT0,311
Écart entre enseignants0,276 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetPlatelet Disorders and Treatments→Travaux en français237 207→