MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2786491861 · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1627480

International Council for Standardization in Haematology (ICSH) Recommendations for Laboratory Measurement of Direct Oral Anticoagulants

2018· article· en· W2786491861 on OpenAlexaff
Robert C. Gosselin, Dorothy Adcock, Shannon M. Bates, Jonathan Douxfils, Emmanuel J. Favaloro, Isabelle Gouin‐Thibault, Cecilia Guillermo, Yohko Kawai, Edelgard Lindhoff‐Last, Steve Kitchen

Bibliographic record

VenueThrombosis and Haemostasis · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApixabanMedicineEdoxabanRivaroxabanStandardizationDabigatranQuality assuranceMedical physicsMedical laboratoryProthrombin timeCoagulation testingExternal quality assessmentAtrial fibrillationWarfarinInternal medicineComputer sciencePathologyCoagulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This guidance document was prepared on behalf of the International Council for Standardization in Haematology (ICSH) for providing haemostasis-related guidance documents for clinical laboratories. This inaugural coagulation ICSH document was developed by an ad hoc committee, comprised of international clinical and laboratory direct acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) experts. The committee developed consensus recommendations for laboratory measurement of DOACs (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban), which would be germane for laboratories assessing DOAC anticoagulation. This guidance document addresses all phases of laboratory DOAC measurements, including pre-analytical (e.g. preferred time sample collection, preferred sample type, sample stability), analytical (gold standard method, screening and quantifying methods) and post analytical (e.g. reporting units, quality assurance). The committee addressed the use and limitations of screening tests such as prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time as well as viscoelastic measurements of clotting blood and point of care methods. Additionally, the committee provided recommendations for the proper validation or verification of performance of laboratory assays prior to implementation for clinical use, and external quality assurance to provide continuous assessment of testing and reporting method.

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)0.123
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.206
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.650

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1230.206
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0130.011
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0080.006
Research integrity0.0090.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.015

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 head0.446
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.027 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations386
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThrombosis and HaemostasisSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207