Comparison of Multiplate, Platelet Function Analyzer-200, and Plateletworks in Healthy Dogs Treated with Aspirin and Clopidogrel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Platelet function testing may be warranted to assess response to aspirin and clopidogrel. HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of aspirin, clopidogrel, or combination therapy using 3 platelet function tests: Multiplate Analyzer (MP), Platelet Function Analyzer-200 (PFA), and Plateletworks (PW). ANIMALS: Six healthy laboratory Beagles. METHODS: Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study (crossover design). Dogs were given aspirin 1 mg/kg, clopidogrel 2 mg/kg, or combination therapy for 1 week each, with a washout period of 2 weeks. Platelet function was assessed on days 0 and 7 of each phase using MP (adenosine diphosphate [ADP], arachidonic acid [AA], collagen [COL] agonists), PFA (P2Y, COL-ADP [CADP], COL-Epinephrine [CEPI] cartridges), and PW (ADP, AA, COL agonists). Platelet counts were obtained with impedance and optical counters. RESULTS: For MP, mean aggregation was decreased for COL and AA with combination therapy and for ADP with all treatments. For PFA, mean CT was increased for the CEPI cartridge with aspirin; and for the P2Y and CADP cartridges with clopidogrel or combination therapy. More dogs receiving clopidogrel showed an increase in PFA CT using the P2Y than the CADP cartridge. For PW, mean aggregation was decreased for AA with all treatments; for ADP with clopidogrel or combination therapy; and for COL with clopidogrel. The PW results with the 2 hematology counters showed almost perfect agreement. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: All platelet function tests detected treatment effects in some dogs and may have utility for monitoring therapy.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".