Monitoring unfractionated heparin with the aPTT: Time for a fresh look
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laboratory monitoring is widely recommended to measure the anticoagulant effect of unfractionated heparin and to adjust the dose to maintain levels in the target therapeutic range. The most widely used laboratory assay for monitoring unfractionated heparin therapy is the activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT). A fixed therapeutic range for the aPTT of 1.5 to 2.5 times the control value has become widely accepted, but the evidence supporting this range is weak and the clinical validity of using the aPTT for predicting thrombotic or bleeding events is questionable. The aPTT test is also affected by numerous preanalytic and analytic variables that are unrelated to the anticoagulant effect of unfractionated heparin, further eroding its potential value for monitoring unfractionated heparin treatment. Unfractionated heparin dose appears to be more important than the aPTT in predicting clinical efficacy. Despite serious limitations, the reliance on the aPTT is likely to continue because of its ready availability and familiarity of clinicians with the test. The focus of clinicians who manage unfractionated heparin therapy should be to ensure that an adequate starting dose of unfractionated heparin is used and that the aPTT method is standardized. Future research efforts should be directed towards developing methods to improve standardization of the aPTT assay for monitoring unfractionated heparin. Direct measures of the concentration of unfractionated heparin in the blood are attractive because these assays are not affected by many of the biologic variables that interfere with the aPTT and may be suitable for automation. However, currently available unfractionated heparin assays are much more expensive than the aPTT, are not widely available, and their validity has not been adequately assessed in clinical outcome studies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
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".