The Clinical Utility of D-Dimer and Prothrombin Fragment (F1+2) for Peripheral Artery Disease: A Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
D-dimer and prothrombin fragment (F1+2) levels are elevated in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). We examined their prognostic potential in predicting decreasing ABI and major adverse limb events (MALE). A total of 206 patients were recruited from St. Michael’s Hospital and followed for two years. Baseline plasma concentrations of D-dimer and F1+2 were recorded. Pearson’s correlation was used to assess the correlation between the biomarkers and ABI at year 2. During follow-up, multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis was performed to investigate their role in predicting decreasing ABI (defined as change in ABI > −0.15) and MALE (defined as the need for arterial intervention or major limb amputation). Cumulative survival was assessed using Kaplan−Meier analysis. Baseline D-dimer and F1+2 levels were elevated in PAD patients (median (IQR) 1.34 (0.80−2.20) for D-dimer and 3.60 (2.30−4.74) for F1+2; p = 0.001) compared to non-PAD controls (median (IQR) 0.69 (0.29−1.20) for D-dimer and 1.84 (1.17−3.09) for F1+2; p = 0.001). Both markers were negatively correlated with ABI at year 2 (r = −0.231 for D-dimer, r = −0.49 for F1+2; p = 0.001). Cox analysis demonstrated F1+2 and D-dimer to be independent predictors of PAD status (HR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.15−1.54; p = 0.013 for D-dimer and HR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.14−1.58; p = 0.019 for F1+2). Elevated baseline concentrations of D-dimer and F1+2 were associated with high incidence of decreasing ABI and 1- and 2-year event-free survival (62% and 86%, respectively). Combined analysis of D-dimer and F1+2 provides important prognostic information that facilitates risk stratification for future disease progression and MALE outcomes in patients with PAD.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".