MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157018711 · doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2021.08.005

Investigating the two regimes of fibrin clot lysis: an experimental and computational approach

2021· article· en· W3157018711 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Franck Raynaud, Alexandre Fontaine Rousseau, Daniel Monteyne, David Pérez‐Morga, Karim Zouaoui Boudjeltia, Bastien Chopard

Bibliographic record

VenueBiophysical Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood properties and coagulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCentre hospitalier universitaire Sainte-JustineHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeFP7 Coherent Development of Research Policies
KeywordsLysisFibrinBiophysicsChemistryBiologyBiochemistryImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been observed in vitro that complete clot lysis is generally preceded by a slow phase of lysis during which the degradation seems to be inefficient. However, this slow regime was merely noticed, but not yet quantitatively discussed. In our experiments, we observed that the lysis ubiquitously occurred in two distinct regimes, a slow and a fast lysis regime. We quantified extensively the duration of these regimes for a wide spectrum of experimental conditions and found that on average, the slow regime lasts longer than the fast one, meaning that during most of the process, the lysis is ineffective. We proposed a computational model in which the properties of the binding of the proteins change during the lysis: first, the biochemical reactions take place at the surface of the fibrin fibers, then in the bulk, resulting in the observed fast lysis regime. This simple hypothesis appeared to be sufficient to reproduce with a great accuracy the lysis profiles obtained experimentally.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiophysical JournalSame topicBlood properties and coagulationFrench-language works237,207