Does cryosupernatant plasma improve outcome in thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura? No answer yet
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A randomized prospective trial compared cryosupernatant plasma (CSP) to fresh frozen plasma (FFP) for treatment of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP). A total of 236 patients were required: 28 patients were treated with CSP and 24 with FFP within 30 months. There were no differences in survival at 1 month. By day 9, 17 of 26 patients with CSP and 18 of 24 with FFP had a platelet count >100 x 10(9)/l. At entry, von Willebrand factor (VWF) multimers were normal in all patients (range 1.1-3.95 IU/ml). ADAMTS-13 levels showed large variations ranging from 10% to 100% activity. At entry, no individual had <5% VWF cleaving protease. By day 9 (end of cycle), 89% (FFP) and 67% (CSP) had levels >50% of the controls. At 6 months some patients showed inhibitors to the enzyme in spite of adequate or normal platelet counts. The data from this study do not show an apparent advantage to the use of CSP in TTP. A large number of patients will be required to determine appropriate replacement therapy. We were not able to find a statistically significant relationship between the low level of protease activity at presentation of TTP and response.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 it