MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mechanisms responsible for the failure of protamine 
to inactivate low‐molecular‐weight heparin

2002· article· en· W2064827504 on OpenAlexafffund
Mark Crowther, Leslie R. Berry, Paul Monagle, Anthony K.C. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Haematology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenMcMaster University
FundersMedical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsProtamineProtamine sulfateLow molecular weight heparinHeparinMolecular massChemistryAnticoagulantFractionationPharmacologyChromatographyBiochemistryInternal medicineMedicineEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Protamine is unable to completely reverse the anticoagulant effect of the low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH), a fact of clinical importance given the rapid increase in use of LMWH in clinical practice. This investigation sought to determine the mechanism by which LMWH were able to resist protamine-mediated inactivation. Affinity fractionation of LMWH by passage through a protamine column, with subsequent determination of molecular mass and sulphate charge density, demonstrated that the protamine-resistant fraction in LMWH is an ultra-low-molecular-weight fraction with low sulphate charge density. This group of molecules was not found in unfractionated heparin, even when species of similar molecular mass were compared. We then determined that different commercially available LMWH varied in their ability to be neutralized by protamine, and that this variability correlated with the total sulphate content of the LMWH. We conclude that reduced sulphate charge, not molecular mass, is the principle reason that protamine is unable to fully inactivate LMWH. Furthermore, different LMWH vary in their ability to be neutralized by protamine, suggesting that product-specific recommendations for neutralization might be developed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations186
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of HaematologySame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207