MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficacy of different plasma sources in the treatment of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura

2009· article· en· W2054782519 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Arturo Pereira

Bibliographic record

VenueISBT Science Series · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicComplement system in diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThrombotic thrombocytopenic purpuraCryoprecipitateMedicineFresh frozen plasmaApheresisPlasmapheresisTherapeutic plasma exchangeClinical trialInternal medicineSurgeryPlateletImmunologyAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plasma exchange (PE) with fresh frozen plasma (FFP) is the treatment of choice for thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP). Since TTP patients are exposed to a large number of plasma donors, they would benefit from any additional measure of plasma safety. Several such measures have been implemented but doubts remain as to whether the new types of plasma are as effective as FFP or whether some plasma fraction may be more effective. Cryoprecipitate‐poor plasma (CCP) was introduced in the therapeutics of TTP as a superior alternative to FFP. However, a clinical trial by the Canadian Apheresis Group failed to confirm the therapeutic superiority of CPP over FFP. Quarantine FFP (qFFP) is as effective as chemically modified plasma in the prevention of HIV, HBV and HCV transmission. Since qFFP has not been chemically manipulated, it must be regarded as equivalent to FFP both in terms of protein composition and therapeutic efficacy. Solvent/detergent (SD) plasma has long been used in the treatment of TTP and seems to be as effective as FFP. However, the only formal proof of efficacy consist in a small trial involving only 26 patients. Methylene blue‐photoinactivated plasma (MBPIP) is used in some regions in Spain and other European countries. A recent multicentric, ‘quasi experimental’ trial involving 102 cases of idiopathic TTP has shown that MBPIP is less effective than qFFP. Patient in the MBPIP arm required twice as many PE procedures and more adjuvant therapies to achieve remission and had a higher risk of TTP recrudescence. There is only one randomized trial comparing psoralen‐photoinactivated plasma to FFP. Though no difference was found in the rate of TTP remission, the trial recruited only 35 patients and was therefore severely underpowered. Levels of ADAMTS13 activity, as measured by the current laboratory assays, are similar in the various plasma sources despite some (i.e. MBPIP) are clinically less effective. In conclusion, FFP and qFFP are the plasma sources of choice for PE in TTP. CPP is probably as effective as FFP. MBPIP should be avoided because it is less effective. There is no proof that SD‐plasma and psoralen‐photoinactivated plasma are therapeutically equivalent to FFP. Normal levels of ADAMTS13 in therapeutic plasma seem not to be an accurate proxy of clinical effectiveness.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISBT Science SeriesSame topicComplement system in diseasesFrench-language works237,207