Variability in platelet dense granule adenosine triphosphate release findings amongst patients tested multiple times as part of an assessment for a bleeding disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Lumi-aggregometry quantification of platelet dense granule adenosine triphosphate (ATP) release is commonly used for diagnosing platelet function disorders. As the test findings show considerable variability for healthy controls, we postulated that patient findings might also be variable and investigated patients who were assessed for dense granule ATP release defects more than once. METHODS: Analyses were performed on prospectively collected data for first and second tests for subjects tested for dense granule ATP release defects more than once by the Hamilton Regional Laboratory Program (HRLMP) between January 2007 and June 2013 (cohort I). Similar analyses were performed for subjects who were recruited to a platelet disorder study (cohort II) and were assessed for ATP release defects more than once before October 2015. RESULTS: A total of 150 unique subjects had multiple ATP release tests. Results with individual agonists were variable for many subjects. While normal findings with all tested agonists were often confirmed by the second test (cohort I: 83%; cohort II: 100%), impaired release with multiple agonists was confirmed in only some subjects (cohort I: 34%; cohort II: 54%). Inconsistent findings were common (cohort I: 36%; cohort II: 39%). ISTH bleeding scores showed no relationship to the test findings. The finding of impaired ATP release with 2 or more agonists on both tests was not associated with an increased likelihood of a definite bleeding disorder. CONCLUSION: The variability in platelet dense granule ATP release findings amongst patients assessed for diagnostic purposes suggests that the test has limited value for diagnosing platelet disorders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".