MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125844595 · doi:10.1002/jbm.a.10118

Interactions of antithrombin and proteins in the plasma contact activation system with immobilized functional heparin

2003· article· en· W2125844595 on OpenAlexaff
Rena M. Cornelius, Javier Sánchez, Per Olsson, John L. Brash

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer Surface Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFactor XIIAdsorptionAntithrombinHeparinChromatographySodium dodecyl sulfatePrekallikreinElutionGel electrophoresisMaterials sciencePolyacrylamide gel electrophoresisChemistryBiophysicsCoagulationKallikreinBiochemistryOrganic chemistryEnzymeBiologyMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The interactions of antithrombin (AT) and the contact phase clotting factors with two commercially available heparinized surfaces are reported. The Carmeda (CBAS) and Corline surfaces along with controls (a sulfonated polyethylene surface and a CBAS analog in which the heparin used was devoid of specific AT-binding sequences) were exposed to human plasma. Adsorbed proteins were eluted and examined by sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and immunoblotting. The CBAS and Corline surfaces adsorbed large amounts of AT, whereas adsorption on the controls was negligible. Immunoblots for the four contact phase clotting factors indicated less contact activation on the CBAS and Corline surfaces than on the controls. Determination of adsorbed functional AT using a FXa inhibition assay showed that the CBAS surface adsorbed about 4 times as much AT as the Corline surface. Adsorption of AT to the control surfaces was minimal. Assays for adsorbed FXII and FXIIa based on kallikrein generation showed that all four surfaces adsorbed similar amounts of FXII. However, on the controls, most of the FXII was in activated form, whereas on the CBAS and Corline surfaces very little activation occurred.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations32
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part ASame topicPolymer Surface Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207