MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Performance characteristics of an automated latex immunoturbidimetric assay [HemosIL ® HIT-Ab (PF4-H) ] for the diagnosis of immune heparin-induced thrombocytopenia

2017· article· en· W2594382840 on OpenAlexaff
Theodore E. Warkentin, Jo‐Ann I. Sheppard, Lori‐Ann Linkins, Donald M. Arnold, Ishac Nazy

Bibliographic record

VenueThrombosis Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia and Thrombosis
Canadian institutionsThrombosis and Atherosclerosis Research InstituteCanadian Blood ServicesMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeparin-induced thrombocytopeniaInternal medicineHeparinLikelihood ratios in diagnostic testingAntibodyGastroenterologyImmunologyPredictive value

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a prothrombotic drug reaction caused by platelet-activating anti-PF4/heparin antibodies. Given time-sensitive treatment considerations, a rapid and accurate laboratory test for HIT antibodies is needed. AIMS: , a rapid, on-demand, fully-automated, latex immunoturbidimetric assay (LIA), for diagnosis of HIT. METHODS: We evaluated LIA sensitivity, specificity, negative (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV), negative (LR-) and positive likelihood ratio (LR+), using citrated-plasma from 429 patients (prospective cohort study of 4Ts scoring; HIT, n=31), and from consecutive HIT patients (n=125), using reference standard serotonin-release assay (SRA). Comparators included two PF4-dependent enzyme-immunoassays (EIAs). We used stratum-specific likelihood ratios (SSLRs) to determine how differing magnitudes of LIA-positivity influenced post-test probability of HIT. RESULTS: LIA operating characteristics were: sensitivity=97.4% (152/156); specificity=94.0% (374/398); PPV=55.6% (30/54); and NPV=99.7% (374/375). At manufacturers' cutoffs, LIA specificity and PPV were superior to the EIAs. Although a negative LIA pointed strongly against HIT (LR-, 0.034), the post-test probability was ~2% with high 4Ts score. The LIA's LR+ was high (16.0), with SSLRs rising substantially with greater LIA-positivity: 5.7 (1.0-4.9U/mL), 31 (5.0-15.9U/mL), and 128 (≥16U/mL). A LIA-positive result (at 1.0 cutoff) indicated at least 24% HIT probability (low 4Ts score), rising to 90% with high 4Ts score. CONCLUSIONS: Although approximately 1 in 40 SRA-positive patients tested LIA-negative, the LIA's high NPV and PPV indicate that this rapid assay is useful for the diagnostic evaluation of HIT, including in low pre-test situations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.503
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations71
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThrombosis ResearchSame topicHeparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia and ThrombosisFrench-language works237,207