MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3190558400 · doi:10.14740/jh832

Platelet Aggregation Assays Do Not Reliably Diagnose Platelet Delta Granule Storage Pool Deficiency

2021· article· en· W3190558400 on OpenAlex
William T. Gunning, Lorene Yoxtheimer, Mary Ruth Smith

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hematology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPlatelet Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlateletMedicineRistocetinDense granuleAdenosine diphosphateEpinephrineGranule (geology)Platelet disorderBleeding timePlatelet aggregationWhole bloodInternal medicineImmunologyGastroenterologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Patients with platelet dysfunction disorders present with a variety of mucocutaneous bleeding symptoms including easy bruising, frequent epistaxis, bleeding gums upon tooth brushing and for women, heavy menstrual bleeding. Available laboratory assays to evaluate platelet function include the platelet function analyzer (PFA) and in larger centers with coagulation laboratories, light transmission platelet aggregometry (LTA) analyses. Both assays are known to have a number of limitations, especially in the diagnosis of platelet delta granule storage pool deficiency (δ-SPD). δ-SPD is an underdiagnosed condition caused by decreased numbers of platelet dense granules (DGs) and is best diagnosed by electron microscopy (EM). Patients with platelet δ-SPD have a decreased response to low levels of the agonist adenosine diphosphate (ADP) in the second wave of light transmittance with LTA or decreased ADP secretion by fluorescence lumiaggregometry. There are few reports that have evaluated patients with δ-SPD and their respective LTA results. One report published in 1987 described normal LTA assays in 23% of patients with δ-SPD; a more recent report described LTA as having the sensitivity to detect only about 52% of patients with δ-SPD. The purpose of our study was intended to review the LTA and EM results of patients suspected of having a platelet function disorder at our institution for comparison with previously published studies. Methods: Our study included 344 patients who had been evaluated by both LTA and whole mount EM. Aggregometry utilized five agonists: ADP, epinephrine, collagen, arachidonic acid, and ristocetin. DGs were enumerated in 100 whole-mounted platelets to determine a mean number of dense granules per platelet (DGs/PL). Results: Seventy-seven percent of our patients were found to have δ-SPD (264/344); 68% (179/264) of these subjects had an abnormal platelet LTA. Thirty-two percent (85/264) of our patients had normal LTA results but were found to have δ-SPD with a mean of 2.54 ± 0.15 DG/PL (normal = 4 - 6 DG/PL). Conclusion: These data confirm previous reports suggesting the utilization of LTA alone in patients with histories of unexplained bleeding may miss the diagnosis of platelet δ-SPD. It is, therefore, prudent to assess platelet DG number by EM, especially if platelet LTA assessment is normal.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score0.718

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.257 · 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