Development of North American Consensus Guidelines for Medical Laboratories That Perform and Interpret Platelet Function Testing Using Light Transmission Aggregometry
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Platelet function testing is important for the diagnostic evaluation of common and rare bleeding disorders. Our study goals were to promote best practices and reduce unnecessary testing variances by developing North American guidelines on platelet function testing. Guidelines were developed by consensus for expert recommendations (minimum level for approval, 70%) that included recommendations on the evaluation and interpretation of light transmission platelet aggregometry (LTA). To assess consensus, medical opinions on recommendations were gathered from diagnostic laboratories that perform LTA, in collaboration with the Quality Management Program-Laboratory Services (QMP-LS) in Ontario, Canada (10 laboratories), and the North American Specialized Coagulation Laboratory Association (NASCOLA; 47 laboratories, 5 overlapping the QMP-LS group). Adequate consensus was achieved for all and 89% of recommendations for the QMP-LS and NASCOLA groups, respectively. The recommendations adopted provide North American laboratories with additional guidance on platelet function testing, including how to interpret LTA abnormalities.
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.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it