Temporal Aspects of Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia is a relatively common antibody-mediated drug reaction. We studied the temporal relation between previous or current heparin therapy and the onset of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. METHODS: We examined the time between the start of heparin therapy and the onset of thrombocytopenia in 243 patients with serologically confirmed heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. We also investigated the persistence of circulating heparin-dependent antibodies by performing a platelet serotonin-release assay and an assay for antibodies against platelet factor 4. The outcome in seven patients who had previously had an episode of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and were later treated again with heparin was also examined. RESULTS: A fall in the platelet count beginning four or more days after the start of heparin therapy occurred in 170 of the 243 patients (70 percent); in these patients, a history of previous heparin treatment did not influence the timing of the onset of thrombocytopenia. In the remaining 73 patients (30 percent), the onset of thrombocytopenia was rapid (median time of onset, 10.5 hours after the start of heparin administration); all these patients had been treated with heparin within the previous 100 days. During recovery from thrombocytopenia, heparin-dependent antibodies in the serum fell to undetectable levels at a median of 50 to 85 days, depending on the assay performed. In the seven patients who were given heparin again after the disappearance of heparin-dependent antibodies, a new episode of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia did not occur. CONCLUSIONS: Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia can begin rapidly in patients who have received heparin within the previous 100 days. Heparin-dependent antibodies do not invariably reappear with subsequent heparin 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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".