Correlation between PlateletWorks® and PFA-100® for Measuring Platelet Function before Urgent Surgery in Patients with Chronic Antiplatelet Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hemostasis is crucial for reducing bleeding during surgical procedures. The points-of-care based on the platelet function test could be useful to minimize the complications related to chronic antiplatelet therapy during surgery. The present study is aimed at comparing two point-of-care platelet function devices—Platelet Function Analyzer PFA-100® (Siemens Canada, Mississauga, ON, Canada) and Plateletworks®(Helena Laboratories, Beaumont, TX, USA). Our objective is to evaluate if they provide comparable and useful information to manage anti-aggregate patients before surgery. We included patients with a femoral fracture receiving chronic antiplatelet therapy and a median age of 89 years (range from 70 to 98). A platelet function evaluation was performed on all patients before surgery using both devices—Plateletworks® and PFA-100®. The correlation between Plateletworks® and PFA-100® was performed using Cohen’s Kappa coefficient. Twenty consecutive patients participated in the trial; 16 patients were under treatment with 75 mg/day of clopidogrel, three with >300 mg/day of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), and only one was in treatment with both antiplatelet agents. Cohen’s Kappa coefficient was 0.327 comparing PFA-100®-ADP (adenosine diphosphate) and Plateletworks® and, 0.200 comparing PFA-100®-EPI (epinephrine) and Plateletworks®. In conclusion, we found a weak concordance comparing PFA-100® and Plateletworks®. This could partially be due to the advanced age of the included patients. However, given the limited sample size, more studies are necessary to confirm these results.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".