Dabigatran assessment in patients with acute complications using routine coagulation assays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complications while on dabigatran therapy, particularly bleeding and thrombosis, are occurring, and require laboratory assessment. The utility of routine coagulation assays has been previously evaluated in stable patients, but not those with acute complications. The purpose of this study was to determine how to employ routine coagulation assays to assess dabigatran in patients with acute complications. Seventeen patients on dabigatran presenting with various complications were evaluated. In addition, plasma samples with various fibrinogen levels were spiked in vitro with dabigatran ranging from low trough levels to the highest supratherapeutic concentrations reported (5000 ng/ml). INR, partial thromboplastin time (PTT), thrombin time (TT, Diagnostica Stago reagent), and fibrinogen were assayed and results compared to that of the Hemoclot Thrombin Inhibitors assay. Interference in the Clauss fibrinogen assay was assessed using a variety of commercial reagents. The majority of patients on dabigatran with acute complications demonstrated a significant negative bias in PTT results compared to normal plasma. TT remained highly sensitive to the presence of dabigatran (at least 10 ng/ml) under all circumstances investigated. There was wide variation in the sensitivity of commercial fibrinogen assays to dabigatran, with some even showing interference in the therapeutic range but this could be mitigated. The PTT is unreliable as a method for assessment of dabigatran in patients with acute complications. The TT assay is a simple and reliable alternative, particularly when combined with a fibrinogen level.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".