Protein C and protein S levels can be accurately determined within 24 hours of diagnosis of acute venous thromboembolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 50% of cases of acute idiopathic venous thromboembolism, laboratory testing for inherited causes is often performed. Most physicians are under the impression that assays for protein C and protein S should not be measured at the time of diagnosis because of a high false positive rate. We performed a prospective cohort study from two outpatient thromboembolism clinics on consecutive patients with an objectively confirmed diagnosis of first acute idiopathic venous thromboembolism. Assays for protein C and protein S were performed prior to the initiation of oral anticoagulation therapy and within 24 h of diagnosis of venous thromboembolism. Abnormal results were repeated when patients discontinued oral anticoagulant therapy. Of 253 patients tested for both protein C and protein S, 229 (91%; 95% confidence interval 87-94%) were negative and 484 of 508 (95%) tests were normal. Of the 24 initial abnormal results, 21 were repeated and 10 (48%; 95% confidence interval 26-70%) were still abnormal. Overall, 97.8% of initial protein C and protein S results were accurate. If protein C and protein S are measured at the time of diagnosis of acute venous thromboembolism, the majority of the results will be normal and false positives are uncommon.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".