MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2417439309 · doi:10.1002/jca.21475

Two approaches to the clinical dilemma of treating TTP with therapeutic plasma exchange in patients with a history of anaphylactic reactions to plasma

2016· article· en· W2417439309 on OpenAlexaff
Davinder Sidhu, Edward L. Snyder, Christopher A. Tormey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Apheresis · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicComplement system in diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersTerumo BCT
KeywordsMedicineTherapeutic plasma exchangeAnaphylaxisPlasmapheresisThrombotic thrombocytopenic purpuraApheresisAllergyImmunologyInternal medicinePlateletAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) is a rare but serious disease caused by autoantibody-mediated deficiency in von Willebrand factor (VWF) cleaving protease, ADAMTS-13. The primary acute treatment is therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE). However, some patients can develop allergic/anaphylactic reactions to the replacement (i.e., donor) plasma over time. Two potential treatment strategies for patients with TTP who demonstrate severe allergic reactions to plasma used for exchange were examined. METHODS: Two patients with TTP exacerbations who developed severe allergic reactions to donor plasma were identified. One patient's TPE was re-initiated with Octaplas, a lot-batched solvent and detergent treated, type-specific, pooled donor plasma product. The other patient was exchanged with primarily albumin, followed by slow incremental exposures to donor plasma to mitigate exposures and allergic risks. Both patients were assessed for anaphylaxis. RESULTS: Both treatment strategies were successful in preventing any further clinically significant allergic/anaphylactic reactions and facilitated both patients' TTP remissions. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our experience with two similar patients with TTP exacerbations and history of anaphylactic reactions to plasma during TPE, we have identified two possible treatment protocols to achieve remission in this clinical dilemma. Substituting Octaplas for standard plasma or, alternatively, using albumin with slowly increasing amounts of standard plasma may help to mitigate the risk of further anaphylactic adverse events. J. Clin. Apheresis 32:158-162, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.170
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.168 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical ApheresisSame topicComplement system in diseasesFrench-language works237,207