Heparin to Pentasaccharide and Beyond: The End Is Not in Sight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 87-year history of heparin began in 1916 when a 26-year-old medical student named Jay McLean startled his mentor William Howell, Professor of Physiology at Johns Hopkins University, by proclaiming that he had discovered "antithrombin." This discovery was so surprising to Howell because he had expected McLean to isolate thromboplastin, a clot-promoting substance from animal tissue. In 1928, Charles Best, M.D., in Toronto, Canada, organized a team of chemists, physiologists, and surgeons to focus on the development of heparin. This group determined which animal tissues were the best source, had performed purification and identification, and had determined pharmacologic properties in vitro. By 1935, they were ready for human trials. By 1941, the group reported a series of 700 patients treated with the glycosaminoglycan called heparin. Meanwhile a critical cofactor, antithrombin, had been discovered at the University of Iowa (Brinkhous, et al). Introduction of newer tests for laboratory monitoring enabled refinement of dosages during the 1960s and 1970s. Its use permitted the development of hemodialysis and cardiopulmonary bypass surgery, and the prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis in surgical patients. The concept of low-molecular-weight heparin occurred to Dr. Choay and others in France in the late 1970s. During the 1980s and 1990s, the development of low-molecular-weight heparins evolved for both prophylaxis and therapy. The first synthetic product was called the pentasaccharide, named for the five critical sugar units in heparin that bind to antithrombin (1983). Since then, this drug has been studied extensively to prove its clinical efficacy and safety.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
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".