MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Can Heparin-Based Therapy in Children Be Monitored on Samples Drawn Through Ports? An Analysis From Clinical Trials Data,

2011· article· en· W2592573887 on OpenAlexaff
Marilyn J. Manco‐Johnson, Neil M. Goldenberg, Lesley Mitchell, Linda Jacobson

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVenipunctureHeparinMedicinePhlebotomyThrombosisAnticoagulantSerial dilutionInternal medicineSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 3365 Background: Based on preliminary data, children clear heparins more rapidly than adults, and thus most pediatric hematologists monitor heparin therapy. Many pediatric deep vein thrombosis patients have indwelling central venous lines (CVLs) due to co-morbid conditions and patients and clinicians desire to use these CVLs for blood sampling. Standard protocols are used to flush and clear CVLs prior to sample collection, but validated approaches to exclude contamination of heparin in dwell-volume (i.e., hep-lock) from systemic anticoagulant have not been established. Aims: This study was conducted to determine the accuracy of heparin monitoring in samples collected from CVLs. Methods: Anticoagulant effects of unfractionated heparin (UH) and dalteparin low molecular weight heparin (D) were determined by assay of anti-IIa activity, anti-Xa activity and the ratio of the two using chromogenic assays (Biophen). Normal pooled plasma was spiked with 2 U/mL of either drug and dilutions were made to 1.5, 1, 0.75, 0.5, 0.25 and 0.1 U/mL in normal pooled plasma. The assays and ratios were applied to plasma samples obtained by standard protocol from CVLs or peripheral venipuncture in two separate clinical trials. Results: Intra-assay CV for anti-IIa was 14.2 and 13.3% for UH and D, respectively; intra-assay CV for anti-Xa was 8.3 and 2.8% for UH and D, respectively. The ratio of anti-IIa to anti-Xa activity for UH was > 0.75 at all concentrations, while the ratio of anti-IIa to anti-Xa for D was < 0.5 when anti-Xa was within the therapeutic range of 0.5–1.0 U/mL, but overlapped with UH at concentrations ≥ 1.5 U/mL and ≤ 0.25 U/mL. In trial 1, DAVINCI, 4/26 (15.4% of) samples drawn from CVLs with therapeutic anti-Xa activity had ratios > 0.5 suggestive of UH contamination, while 0/8 peripherally drawn samples had ratios in that range. In trial 2, 5/26 (19.2% of) patient samples drawn from CVLs had ratios > 0.5. Conclusions: An anti-IIa/anti-Xa ratio < 0.5 is specific for uncontaminated D effect when anti-Xa is within the therapeutic range. However, without measuring ratios 15–20% of CVL samples used to monitor D will overestimate therapeutic response. Therefore, we favor peripherally drawn samples in order to reliably monitor anticoagulation in children. Disclosures: Manco-Johnson: Easai: Research Funding. Goldenberg:Easai: Research Funding.

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)0.097
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.146
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0970.146
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.271
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.149 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→French-language works237,207→