Lyophilized platelets versus cryopreserved platelets for management of bleeding in thrombocytopenic dogs: A multicenter randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Thrombocytopenia in dogs is common in critical care medicine, but availability of fresh platelet concentrates in veterinary medicine can be limiting. Lyophilized platelets have long shelf-lives and can be easily transported, stored, and administered in various settings. Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a novel trehalose-stabilized canine lyophilized platelet product in thrombocytopenic dogs with clinically-evident bleeding. Animals Eighty-eight dogs with platelet counts <50 × 103/μL and a standardized bleeding assessment tool (DOGiBAT) score ≥2. Methods Multicenter, randomized, non-blinded, non-inferiority clinical trial comparing dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO)-stabilized cryopreserved platelet concentrates (CPP) with trehalose-stabilized lyophilized platelets (LP) for control of bleeding in thrombocytopenic dogs. Dogs were randomized to receive 3 × 109 platelets/kg of LP or CPP. Primary outcome measures were change in DOGiBAT score, platelet count, need for additional red cell transfusion and all-cause mortality. Results Fifty dogs received LP and 38 received CPP. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics of both groups were comparable. At 1-hour post-transfusion, LP were superior for change in DOGiBAT score, and non-inferior at 24-hours post-transfusion. The LP were non-inferior to CPP for change in platelet count, need for additional red blood cell units, and survival to discharge. The LP were superior for change in hematocrit at 1-hour post-transfusion, and non-inferior at 24-hours. No adverse effects were noted in either group. Conclusions and Clinical Importance A novel trehalose-stabilized canine LP product appears to be logistically superior and is clinically non-inferior to DMSO-stabilized canine CPP for management of bleeding in thrombocytopenic dogs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".