Use of a Fixed Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time Ratio to Establish a Therapeutic Range for Unfractionated Heparin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The commonly recommended therapeutic range for patients receiving unfractionated heparin of 1.5 to 2.5 times the control activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) is not universally applicable. It has been suggested that the therapeutic range for each aPTT reagent should be based on plasma heparin levels. We sought to identify an aPTT ratio that corresponds to therapeutic anti--factor Xa heparin levels for combinations of several reagents and coagulometers that are commonly used. METHODS: Citrated plasma was collected from 126 unselected patients receiving unfractionated heparin. Four automated coagulometers and 6 commercial aPTT reagents were used to measure the aPTT. Plasma anti--factor Xa levels were measured by means of a commercially available assay. The relationship between the aPTT results and anti-factor Xa heparin levels for each reagent-coagulometer combination was determined by linear regression analysis, and the aPTT results corresponding to therapeutic anti--factor Xa heparin levels were calculated. RESULTS: For all reagent-coagulometer combinations studied, an aPTT ratio of 1.5 resulted in anti--factor Xa heparin levels considerably below the lower limit of the therapeutic range. When the aPTT was performed on any of the coagulometers assessed with the use of Actin (Dade Diagnostics, Aguada, Puerto Rico) and IL Test (Instrumentation Laboratories, Fisher Scientific, Unionville, Ontario) reagents, aPTT ratios necessary to achieve therapeutic anti--factor Xa heparin levels approximated 2.0 to 3.5. CONCLUSION: For laboratories that cannot perform heparin levels, the use of less responsive reagents and any of the coagulometers studied, along with target aPTT ratio between 2.0 and 3.5, appears to be a reasonable alternative.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".