MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2988107977 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-126354

Validation of the Plasmic Score for Predicting ADAMTS13 Activity < 10% in Patients Admitted to Hospitals in Alberta with Suspected Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura

2019· article· en· W2988107977 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chris Wynick, J. Britto, Daniel Sawler, Arabesque Parker, Mohammad Karkhaneh, Dawn Goodyear, Haowei Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicComplement system in diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsADAMTS13Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpuraMedicineThrombotic microangiopathyInternal medicinePopulationThrombosisCohortApheresisRetrospective cohort studyGastroenterologyPlateletPediatricsDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) is a life-threatening thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA), characterized by widespread intravascular thrombosis. Diagnosis of TTP is confirmed by a deficiency in ADAMTS13. However, given the urgency of prompt diagnosis and delayed turnaround time of ADAMTS13 assay in most labs, initial diagnosis is based on clinical acumen. Suspected TTP is empirically treated with plasma exchange (PLEX), which, while beneficial in TTP, may delay appropriate treatment for similar disorders. The PLASMIC score was developed by Bendapudi et al. (Lancet Hematology 2017) to utilize clinical signs and investigations to predict which patients had an ADAMTS13 score < 10%, and therefore TTP, who require PLEX. Validation studies have shown a very high sensitivity (90-98%) and high specificity (46-92%), although these studies included an enriched population with available ADAMTS13 assay results (Jajosky et al. Transfusion and Apheresis Science, 2017, Li et al. Journal of Thrombosis and Hemostasis 2018). The purpose of this study is to validate the PLASMIC score using a Canadian population of suspected TTP regardless if ADAMTS13 was ordered, and compare it to clinical gestalt. This is a retrospective cohort study of all adults aged 18 years or older who presented or were transferred to any of the two apheresis centres in Alberta, Canada with a suspected diagnosis of TTP from January 1, 2008 - December 31, 2018. A confirmed diagnosis of TTP was defined as an ADAMTS13 level prior to PLEX < 10%, or ADAMTS13 level between 10-20% if drawn after plasma infusion or PLEX. ADAMTS13 testing was done in accordance with the procedures at these institutions. The PLASMIC score was used to stratify patients into low (0-4), intermediate (5) and high (6-7) risk of TTP (Table 1). Descriptive analyses was performed to examine the proportion of patients with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk PLASMIC score who had ADAMTS13 testing done and who received PLEX. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of PLASMIC score were calculated. Two PLASMIC score cutoffs were used for the analysis, 1) high risk vs low to intermediate risk, and 2) intermediate to high risk vs low risk. Receiver operator curve (ROC) analysis was used to test the association between severe ADAMTS13 deficiency and the PLASMIC score. PLASMIC scores were also compared to clinical gestalt, defined as initiation of PLEX within 48 hours of presentation. The C statistic was calculated from the area under the ROC and compared using the Z-test. As some patients who may have died from TTP did not have ADAMTS13 level sent, sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the ROC curve for the PLASMIC score in detecting both definite and probable TTP. A P-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Of the 162 cases of suspected TTP, 61 (38%) had severe ADAMTS13 <10%. ADAMTS13 was sent prior to plasma exchange in 103 (64%) cases and shortly after PLEX initiation in 15 (9%). Using a high-risk PLASMIC score cut-off (6-7) vs low to intermediate-risk score (0-5), the sensitivity was 83.6%, specificity 67.3%, PPV 60.7% and NPV 87.2%. In contrast, using a cut-off of medium to high-risk PLASMIC score (5-7) vs low-risk score (0-4), the sensitivity improved to 96.7%, whereas the specificity was reduced to 30.7% (PPV 45.7% and NPV 93.9%). The C-statistics were 0.75 (95% CI 0.69-0.82) and 0.64 (95% CI 0.59-0.69) using the high PLASMIC score and medium-high PLASMIC score cut-offs, respectively (Figure 1). In contrast to PLASMIC score-based risk stratification, clinical gestalt has a comparable sensitivity of 83.6%, but a much lower specificity of 38.9%. There was very low correlation between PLASMIC score and clinical gestalt (kappa 0.0883 (95% CI -0.03-0.21). In our cohort, a high-risk PLASMIC score successfully predicted patients with severe ADAMTS13 deficiency in a Canadian TMA population, with similar sensitivity and improved specificity compared to clinical gestalt. Integration of this scoring system into institutional clinical pathways should be considered to supplement clinician judgment and reduce costs. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicComplement system in diseasesFrench-language works237,207