Elevated factor VIII is a risk factor for idiopathic venous thromboembolism in Canada – is it necessary to define a new upper reference range for factor VIII?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies suggest elevated factor VIII is a common, independent risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE); however, these studies included secondary and idiopathic VTE. We sought to explore the association between elevated factor VIII and VTE in Canadian patients with idiopathic thrombosis, and confirm the current upper factor VIII reference range was appropriate. We enrolled 300 consecutive patients with idiopathic VTE who were matched to friend controls by age, sex and ethnicity. Factor VIII levels were measured and compared between cases and controls. The optimal cut-off value to designate factor VIII levels as elevated was determined using a variety of methods. The optimal upper cut-off value for factor VIII levels was 270 IU/dl. In the logistic regression analysis, cases were more likely to have elevated factor VIII levels (OR:8.76), as were females (OR:1.93) and older subjects (OR: 1.05). Factor VIII cutoffs for a 95% specificity by age were 238 IU/dl for subjects <40 years, 248 IU/dl age 40-55 years, 261 IU/dl age 56-70 years, and 313 IU/dl age >70. Our findings confirm that elevated factor VIII is associated with an increased risk of idiopathic VTE. In our patients and matched controls, the current upper limit of normal (150 IU/dl) for factor VIII is not of clinical use. We propose that the upper limit be increased to 270 IU/dl or individual labs should establish their upper limit if they wish their assays to be discriminatory in patients with VTE. Age specific cut-offs may be clinically relevant.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".