MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069247743 · doi:10.1001/archinte.162.2.217

The Sensitivity and Specificity of a Red Blood Cell Agglutination D-Dimer Assay for Venous Thromboembolism When Performed on Venous Blood

2002· article· en· W2069247743 on OpenAlexaff
Sanjeev Chunilal, Patrick Brill-Edwards, P Stevens, Jody P. Joval, Joanne McGinnis, Mala Rupwate, Jeffrey S. Ginsberg

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Internal Medicine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFingerstickD-dimerVenous bloodVenous thrombosisPulmonary embolismDeep veinThrombosisInternal medicineSurgeryGastroenterologyAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating the accuracy of the SimpliRED D-dimer assay for venous thromboembolism (VTE) have used a capillary fingerstick blood sample, which requires the test to be performed immediately at the bedside. Initial studies showed a sensitivity for VTE of 90% to 95% when the assay was performed by a finite number of experienced health care workers. However, because of the test's subjectivity, misinterpretation of the result is possible when performed by inexperienced staff. Recent reports by other investigators indicated a low sensitivity of this assay for VTE and noted a reduction in sensitivity (84%) for pulmonary embolism. OBJECTIVE: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of the D-dimer test performed in the laboratory by experienced technologists on venous whole-blood samples in routine collection tubes. If D-dimer testing results accurately detect VTE when performed in this manner, concerns about the sensitivity of this assay would be solved. METHODS: One hundred forty-eight consecutive patients with suspected VTE underwent D-dimer testing at the bedside using a fingerstick sample and venous blood collected into a plain tube. Venous blood was also collected into tubes containing tri-potassium EDTA, sodium citrate, or a combination of lithium and heparin for D-dimer testing in the laboratory. In addition, the EDTA tube was refrigerated overnight at 4 degrees C for retesting at approximately 24 hours. The presence or absence of VTE was determined by means of objective results of testing and a 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: Thirty-four subjects (23%) had confirmed VTE (25 with deep vein thrombosis; 9 with pulmonary embolism). All laboratory venous blood D-dimer results showed sensitivities of 97%, specificities of 61% to 64%, and negative predictive values of 99%, compared with 88%, 71%, and 95%, respectively, when the results were obtained by means of fingerstick at the bedside. CONCLUSIONS: The SimpliRED D-dimer assay performed in the laboratory on venous blood, collected into any of 3 routine laboratory tubes, is sensitive and moderately specific for VTE. Based on this study, immediate bedside testing (particularly by inexperienced personnel) under suboptimal conditions is unnecessary. Furthermore, the high sensitivity of refrigerated EDTA samples allows specimens to be stored or transported (on ice at 4 degrees C) for testing for 24 hours after collection.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.304
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations25
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Internal MedicineSame topicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlFrench-language works237,207