Reproducibility, stability, and biological variability of thrombin generation using calibrated automated thrombography in healthy dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Thrombin plays a central role in hemostasis and thrombosis. Calibrated automated thrombography (CAT), a thrombin generation assay, may be a useful test for hemostatic disorders in dogs. OBJECTIVES: To describe CAT results in a group of healthy dogs, and assess preanalytical variables and biological variability. ANIMALS: Forty healthy dogs were enrolled. METHODS: Lag time (Lag), time to peak (ttpeak), peak thrombin generation (peak), and endogenous thrombin potential (ETP) were measured. Direct jugular venipuncture and winged-needle catheter-assisted saphenous venipuncture were used to collect samples from each dog, and results were compared between methods. Sample stability at -80°C was assessed over 12 months in a subset of samples. Biological variability of CAT was assessed via nested ANOVA using samples obtained weekly from a subset of 9 dogs for 4 consecutive weeks. RESULTS: Samples for CAT were stable at -80°C over 12 months of storage. Samples collected via winged-needle catheter venipuncture showed poor repeatability compared to direct venipuncture samples; there was also poor agreement between the 2 sampling methods. Intra-individual variability of CAT parameters was below 25%; inter-individual variability ranged from 36.9% to 78.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of thrombin generation using CAT appears to be repeatable in healthy dogs, and samples are stable for at least 12 months when stored at -80°C. Direct venipuncture sampling is recommended for CAT. Low indices of individuality suggest that subject-based reference intervals are more suitable when interpreting CAT results.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | medium |
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".