Comparison of light transmission aggregometry and multiple electrode aggregometry for the evaluation of patients with mucocutaneous bleeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: analyzer (Roche Diagnostics) requires smaller blood volumes and less sample manipulation than LTA, making it an attractive clinical testing option. Direct comparisons of MEA with LTA for diagnosis of platelet aggregation abnormalities are few. METHODS: Ninety-nine patients (66 F/33 M; median age 26 [range 2-86] years), referred for initial laboratory evaluation of mucocutaneous bleeding, had parallel MEA/LTA testing. Concentrations of ADP, arachidonic acid (AA), collagen, and thrombin receptor-activating peptide (TRAP) that produced threshold responses in normal controls were used for testing patients. RESULTS: Twenty-nine of the 99 patients (30%) had at least one abnormal agonist response by LTA; 15 of these patients had >1 abnormal agonist response. Thirty-six patients (36%) had at least one abnormal agonist response by MEA; 27 had >1 abnormal agonist response. Sensitivity/specificity of MEA relative to LTA: ADP, 0.70/0.72; AA, 0.71/0.85; collagen, 0.85/0.71; TRAP 0.25/0.84. Negative predictive values (NPVs) for MEA relative to LTA: ADP, 0.90; AA, 0.93; collagen, 0.97; TRAP, 0.96. CONCLUSIONS: Specific abnormal results of MEA testing did not adequately predict specific abnormalities in LTA testing using threshold agonist concentrations. However, favorable NPVs suggest that MEA may be useful in screening patients for platelet aggregation abnormalities; those with normal MEA results not requiring further diagnostic testing by LTA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".