Head-to-Head Comparison of Consensus-Recommended Platelet Function Tests to Assess P2Y12 Inhibition—Insights for Multi-Center Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The vasodilator-associated stimulated phosphoprotein (VASP) phosphorylation level is a highly specific method to assess P2Y12 receptor inhibition. Traditionally, VASP phosphorylation is analyzed by flow cytometry, which is laborious and restricted to specialized laboratories. Recently, a simple ELISA kit has been commercialized. The primary objective of this study was to compare the performance of VASP assessment by ELISA and flow cytometry in relation to functional platelet aggregation testing by Multiplate® whole-blood aggregometry. Blood from 24 healthy volunteers was incubated with increasing concentration of a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor (AR-C 66096). Platelet function testing was carried out simultaneously by Multiplate® aggregometry and by VASP assessment through ELISA and flow cytometry. As expected, increasing concentrations of the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor induced a proportional inhibition of platelet aggregation and P2Y12 receptor activation across the modalities. Platelet reactivity index values of both ELISA- and flow cytometry-based VASP assessment methods correlated strongly (r = 0.87, p < 0.0001) and showed minimal bias (1.05%). Correlation with Multiplate® was slightly higher for the flow cytometry-based VASP assay (r = 0.79, p < 0.0001) than for the ELISA-based assay (r = 0.69, p < 0.0001). Intraclass correlation (ICC) was moderate for all the assays tested (ICC between 0.62 and 0.84). However, categorization into low, optimal, or high platelet reactivity based on these assays was strongly concordant (κ between 0.86 and 0.92). In conclusion, the consensus-recommended assays with their standardized cut-offs should not be used interchangeably in multi-center clinical studies but, rather, they should be standardized throughout sites.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.183 | 0.147 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".