Do plasma protein:fibrinogen ratios in horses provide additional information compared with fibrinogen concentration alone?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The plasma protein:fibrinogen (PP:F) ratio was introduced to aid interpretation of hyperfibrinogenemia by accounting for dehydration. However, this ratio is inconsistently assessed in practice and its clinical value remains unknown. Our objective was to determine whether the PP:F ratio provides additional information in adult horses beyond fibrinogen concentration alone. Two databases were reviewed to identify 412 hyperfibrinogenemic horses. Plasma protein:fibrinogen ratios were calculated and their interpretation compared to the fibrinogen concentration. Ratios < 15 were supportive of inflammation. Albumin and total protein concentrations were evaluated when ratios were ≥ 15 to determine if inflammation was supported. Very good agreement (86%) was found on the presence of inflammation when PP:F ratios were compared to fibrinogen concentration. In 72% of cases in which PP:F ratios did not support inflammation, inflammation was considered likely based on albumin and total protein. These findings suggest that PP:F ratios do not provide additional information in horses over fibrinogen concentrations alone.
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 | 0.012 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".