Long-Term Aspirin and Clopidogrel Response Evaluated by Light Transmission Aggregometry, VerifyNow, and Thrombelastography in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A reduced response to aspirin and clopidogrel predicts ischemic events, but reliable tests are needed to identify low responders. We compared 3 platelet-function tests during long-term dual treatment with aspirin and clopidogrel. METHODS: Patients who underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention and were receiving a combination of 325 mg/day aspirin and 75 mg/day clopidogrel were followed for 1 year. Blood was sampled 5 times during this period for 3 tests: light transmission aggregometry (LTA) assay, with 5.0 micromol/L ADP or 1.0 mmol/L arachidonic acid (AA) used as an agonist; VerifyNow assay, with the P2Y(12) or aspirin cartridge (Accumetrics); and thrombelastography (TEG), stimulated by 2.0 micromol/L ADP or 1.0 mmol/L AA. RESULTS: Twenty-six of 33 patients completed all scheduled visits. A low response to clopidogrel was found in a few patients at variable frequencies and at different visits, depending on the method and criteria used. We found a moderate correlation between the LTA (ADP) and VerifyNow (P2Y(12) cartridge) results, but the TEG (ADP) results correlated poorly with the LTA and VerifyNow results. A low response to aspirin was found with the VerifyNow (aspirin cartridge) and TEG (AA) methods on 6 and 2 occasions, respectively, but not with the LTA (AA) method, except for 1 occasion caused by probable noncompliance. CONCLUSIONS: Detecting a low response to clopidogrel depends largely on the method used. Which method best predicts ischemic events remains uncertain. A low response to aspirin is rare with AA-dependent methods used at the chosen cutoffs. In some patients, the response to clopidogrel or aspirin may be classified differently at different times, even with the same method.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".