MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Continuous Versus Subsampling Analysis of Thrombin Generation.

2004· article· en· W2981242160 on OpenAlexaff
Alice Lau, Leslie R. Berry, Anthony K.C. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical CentreHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThrombin generationThrombinSubstrate (aquarium)TrisChemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChromatographyPlateletBiochemistryBiologyMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Thrombin generation measurement is becoming a useful technique to assess the hemostatic system. Subsampling methods though labour intensive, measure activities directly. The continuous method has become an alternative option. Studies by Hemker et.al. (1) showed that both methods gave comparable results but had some differences. We decided to further assess the variation between the methods. For the continuous method, 125μl of plasma, 15μl of Pefabloc (50mg/ml) and 12.5μl of Pefachrome TG5134 (0.5mM) were added to a 96 well ELISA plate and prewarmed to 37°C. The reaction was started by adding 97.5μl of 1/12.5 Thromborel S in 25.64mM CaCl2/Tris buffer. The optical density at 405nm was recorded at an interval of 15sec for 15 min. For the subsampling method, 125μl of 1/16 Thromborel S in 20mM CaCl2/Tris buffer was added to 125μl of defibrinated (Arvin) plasma. Subsamples were taken into 5mM EDTA solution at 15sec intervals. Chromogenix S2238 was used for measuring thrombin in the subsampling method. The continuous method gave a peak height of ~410nM and area under the curve of 860–900 nM.min whereas the subsampling method gave a peak height of ~360nM and an area under the curve of 550–600nM.min. This difference disappeared when PefachromeTG5134 was added into the reaction mixture prior to running subsampling assays. Thus, substrate likely slowed inhibition of generated thrombin in the continuous assay, which confirms previous findings by Hemker et.al. (1). Further examination revealed that the concentration of α2M-IIa complex was very different between the two methods. α2M-IIa complex calculated from the continuous method (80nM) was much greater than α2M-IIa complex obtained experimentally by the subsampling method (38nM) even in the presence of TG5134. However, addition of a large excess of antithrombin and heparin at the final equilibrium time point of the continuous assay reduced the α2M-IIa complex to the same level (38nM) as that of the subsampling method. We have shown that the slow-acting substrate Pefachrome TG5134 gave an increased estimate of both free and α2M-IIa complex. Thus, a significant amount of free thrombin remains at the end of thrombin generation that is not accounted for in the continuous method. This estimate of final α2M-IIa complex concentration may be important in determining the relative protection against long-term plasma thrombin activity in pediatric patients with elevated α2M levels.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→