Recommendations for Appropriate Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time Reagent Selection and Utilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) is widely used as a screening coagulation test and for monitoring unfractionated heparin therapy. Various commercial reagents are available, with different performance characteristics, particularly responsiveness to the lupus anticoagulant (LA). Because aPTT reagent selection significantly affects the interpretation of results, we reviewed College of American Pathologists proficiency testing data involving approximately 4,000 coagulation laboratories, and conducted a survey of coagulation laboratories (n = 93) using The Fritsma Factor hemostasis Web site to determine the basis for aPTT reagent selection. The data demonstrate that for routine aPTT testing, most laboratories use reagents with high/moderate responsiveness to LA. Significant misunderstanding was apparent regarding the use of appropriate aPTT reagent for routine testing and LA identification. We recommend aPTT reagents with low LA responsiveness to screen for coagulation factor deficiencies and heparin monitoring, and suggest continued education of laboratory professionals and reagent manufacturers about appropriate aPTT reagent use.
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 | 0.037 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.008 |
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".