MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Monoclonal platelet antigen capture assays (MAIPA) and reagents: a statement

2007· article· en· W1539367798 on OpenAlexaff
C. Kaplan, John Freedman, Z. Foxcroft, Anne Husebekk, Paul Metcalfe, Eduardo Muñiz‐Díaz, Willem H. Ouwehand, Simon Panzer, Primož Rožman, Bjøŕn Skogen

Bibliographic record

VenueVox Sanguinis · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPlatelet Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonoclonal antibodyMedicinePlateletPlatelet transfusionAntigenImmunologyStatement (logic)Transfusion medicineBlood transfusionAntibodyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This statement concerning the monoclonal-specific immobilization of platelet antigens (MAIPA) has been written on behalf of the International Society of Blood Transfusion--Working Party on Platelet Immunology. The MAIPA technique is considered as the gold standard reference technique in platelet immunology. The assay performed with reagents labelled for 'research only' is acceptable as long as it is regularly evaluated by participation of laboratories in national or international workshops held with reference laboratories.

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 score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations29
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVox SanguinisSame topicPlatelet Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207