MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009812171 · doi:10.3389/fcvm.2020.00015

Procoagulant Phosphatidylserine-Exposing Platelets in vitro and in vivo

2020· review· en· W3009812171 on OpenAlexaff
Emily C. Reddy, Margaret L. Rand

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPlatelet Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlateletProthrombinasePhosphatidylserineCell biologyPlatelet activationThrombinChemistryCoagulationIn vitroTissue factorIn vivoStimulationImmunologyBiologyMedicineBiochemistryInternal medicineNeurosciencePhospholipidMembrane

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The physiological heterogeneity of platelets leads to diverse responses and the formation of discrete subpopulations upon platelet stimulation. Procoagulant platelets are an example of such subpopulations, a key characteristic of which is exposure either of the anionic aminophospholipid phosphatidylserine (PS) or of tissue factor on the activated platelet surface. This review focuses on the former, in which PS exposure on a subpopulation of platelets facilitates assembly of the intrinsic tenase and prothrombinase complexes, thereby accelerating thrombin generation on the activated platelet surface, contributing importantly to the hemostatic process. Mechanisms involved in platelet PS exposure, and accompanying events, induced by physiologically relevant agonists are considered then contrasted with PS exposure resulting from intrinsic pathway-mediated apoptosis in platelets. Pathologies of PS exposure, both inherited and acquired, are described. A consideration of platelet PS exposure as an antithrombotic target concludes the review.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations165
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Cardiovascular MedicineSame topicPlatelet Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207