2021 Update of the International Council for Standardization in Haematology Recommendations for Laboratory Measurement of Direct Oral Anticoagulants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2018, the International Council for Standardization in Haematology (ICSH) published a consensus document providing guidance for laboratories on measuring direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Since that publication, several significant changes related to DOACs have occurred, including the approval of a new DOAC by the Food and Drug Administration, betrixaban, and a specific DOAC reversal agent intended for use when the reversal of anticoagulation with apixaban or rivaroxaban is needed due to life-threatening or uncontrolled bleeding, andexanet alfa. In addition, this ICSH Working Party recognized areas where additional information was warranted, including patient population considerations and updates in point-of-care testing. The information in this manuscript supplements our previous ICSH DOAC laboratory guidance document. The recommendations provided are based on (1) information from peer-reviewed publications about laboratory measurement of DOACs, (2) contributing author's personal experience/expert opinion and (3) good laboratory practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".