Comparison of Russell Viper Venom–Based and Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time–Based Screening Assays for Resistance to Activated Protein C
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thrombotic disease is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity, with an estimated lifetime risk of greater than 10% in Western populations. One of the most common hereditary thrombophilias is the factor V Leiden mutation, which is identified with a screening assay for activated protein C (APC) resistance and confirmed by DNA analysis. In this study, we compared the commercially available Pefakit (Pentapharm, Basel, Switzerland) and Cryocheck (Precision BioLogic, Dartmouth, Canada) assays, 2 recently developed Russell viper venom (RVV)-based screening tests, with the activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT)-based screening test currently used in our hospital's clinical laboratory. We found that the aPTT-based assay for resistance to APC had a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 70%, and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 70%, whereas both of the RVV-based assays exhibited high sensitivity, specificity, and PPV at 100%. In addition, we found that these new functional assays are more cost-effective relative to the screening algorithm previously used in our clinical laboratory and could potentially eliminate the need for DNA analysis, although further study is required.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".