Thrombelastography in dogs admitted to an intensive care unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Underlying conditions in dogs admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) can cause hemostatic dysfunction. Thrombelastography (TEG) may be useful in detecting hemostatic alterations as compared with standard coagulation tests. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare TEG results and those of standard coagulation tests in identifying hemostatic dysfunction in dogs admitted to an ICU and to investigate associations among the variables measured. METHODS: Tissue factor-activated TEG analysis, d-dimer and fibrinogen concentrations, antithrombin (AT) activity, prothrombin time (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), and platelet count were measured using standard techniques on 27 dogs admitted to ICU with a disease known to be associated with hemostatic dysfunction and in 31 clinically healthy control dogs. Results were compared between groups using nonparametric tests and kappa analysis; principal component analysis (PCA) and Spearman rank correlation were used to measure associations among variables. RESULTS: Fourteen of 27 ICU dogs had abnormal TEG tracings, which were used to classify the dogs as hypercoagulable (n=11), hypocoagulable (n=3), or normocoagulable (n=13). Hypercoagulable dogs had significantly increased d-dimer (P=.03) and fibrinogen (P=.01) concentrations compared with normocoagulable dogs. In ICU dogs, positive associations were identified between maximum amplitude (MA), alpha-angle, fibrinogen concentration, and platelet count, and between PT, aPTT, and reaction time (R). Significant correlations were found between MA and fibrinogen (r(s)=.76, P<.001) and between reaction time (R) and PT (r(s)=.51, P=.003). CONCLUSIONS: TEG was useful in detecting hemostatic dysfunction in dogs in an ICU. Positive associations among variables may provide insight as to how overall coagulation status reflects alterations in clot strength and coagulation time. Dogs with TEG tracings indicative of hypercoagulability are likely in procoagulant states. Future studies of the incidence of thrombotic complications in dogs with hypercoagulable TEG tracings are warranted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".