An Assessment of the State of Current Practice in Coagulation Laboratories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the state of current practice in coagulation laboratories regarding three pressing issues: staffing, handling Ebola specimens, and testing/billing for tests that measure direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC). METHODS: A survey and analysis of specialized coagulation laboratories in North America was conducted. RESULTS: Approximately 4,000 special coagulation tests-per-technologist-per-year was rated as either a "good" staffing level or "adequate-but-ideally-need-more" employees. Requiring technologists to perform more than that was rated as an "inadequate" staffing level. For Ebola patients, coagulation testing is mostly performed by point-of-care. Only 26.1% would perform coagulation tests for Ebola specimens within their laboratory (rather than at the bed side or a separate designated space outside the laboratory). Coagulation tests offered for Ebola patients were limited: prothrombin time (63.0% of laboratories), activated partial thromboplastin time (37.0%), D-dimer (13.0%), and fibrinogen (8.7%); 26.1% of laboratories did not offer any coagulation tests for Ebola patients. Approximately 35% of special coagulation laboratories bill for at least one laboratory test for DOACs: 33% bill for an anti-Xa calibrated with rivaroxaban, 17% bill for an anti-Xa calibrated with apixaban, and 27% bill for at least one of several tests for dabigatran. Approximately 48% do not offer any tests for DOACs. CONCLUSIONS: These results may help laboratories negotiate for additional technologists if needed, prepare for Ebola specimens, and manage the demand for laboratory tests for new DOAC anticoagulants.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".