Standardization of thromboelastography: a report from the TEG-ROTEM working group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laboratory evaluation of bleeding disorders has been performed with the standard clotting assays such as the PT and PTT for several decades. Our improved understanding of the process of blood coagulation has now revealed the important role played by the cellular elements such as platelets, monocytes and red blood cells. The need for a test that can assess clotting in a more 'global' manner, beyond the initiation of clot formation, has led to greater interest in assays such as thrombin generation and thromboelastography. Even though there are several publications using thromboelastography it remains a research tool as the methodology is not standardized. In an attempt to show reproducibility and consistency using thromboelastography, a group of investigators from different countries joined hands to form the TEG-ROTEM Working Group. Two studies were performed using PRP and FVIII deficient plasma and an intrinsic pathway activator. This article summarizes the results of the first international effort at standardization of thromboelastography. Both of the instruments using this technology (TEG(®) and ROTEM(®)) were used. Nine laboratories from countries around the globe participated in this effort. The results showed a significant inter-laboratory variance with CV's greater than 10%. Although these results were not satisfactory, this has been the first effort to standardize this methodology and significant work remains to be done to improve reliability and reproducibility. These studies were performed on PRP and the results may be more reliable when preformed on whole blood samples. We believe that it is important to continue this work so that we may investigate the usefulness and potential applications of thromboelastography in the evaluation of bleeding and thrombosis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".