Interlaboratory variation in heparin monitoring: Lessons from the Quality Management Program of Ontario coagulation surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unfractionated heparin (UFH) monitoring is subject to substantial interlaboratory variation. We analysed results of annual coagulation surveys administered by the Quality Management Program - Laboratory Services (Toronto, ON, Canada) from 2003 to 2007 to evaluate variation in UFH monitoring across Ontario. Participating laboratories performed an activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) utilising their local methodology on lyophilised human plasma spiked with UFH. In the 2006 and 2007 surveys, laboratories licensed to perform anti-Xa assays also reported anti-Xa activity results. The APTT differed significantly between heparin-sensitive and heparin-insensitive methods (p<0.0005). Within-method variation was observed and increased with increasing heparin concentration. Among laboratories performing an APTT and anti-Xa, the coefficient of variation was greater in the anti-Xa than in the APTT for both the 2006 (64.0% vs. 10.5%) and 2007 (15.0% vs. 11.6%) surveys. Substantial interlaboratory variation in UFH monitoring, both between and within APTT methods, was observed and was not reduced by use of an anti-Xa assay.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.107 | 0.174 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".