Mechanisms responsible for the failure of protamine to inactivate low‐molecular‐weight heparin
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it