MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243821209 · doi:10.1007/978-1-62703-339-8_14

Fibrinogen

2013· article· en· W4243821209 on OpenAlexafffund
Linda Stang, Lesley Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood properties and coagulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Alberta HospitalAlberta Hospital Edmonton
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fibrinogen is the final essential building block of the clotting process. Thus, all of the preliminary "cause and effect" events in the clotting cascade rely on the work of this molecule to measure their success. The most commonly used laboratory method for measuring fibrinogen is the Clauss fibrinogen assay. The Clauss fibrinogen assay is a quantitative, clot-based, functional assay. The assay measures the ability of fibrinogen to form fibrin clot after being exposed to a high concentration of purified thrombin. Plasma samples are pre-diluted which minimize assay interference from substances like heparin and fibrinogen degradation products. In brief, the diluted plasma is incubated at 37°C prior to the addition of the pre-warmed (37°C) thrombin reagent. From the exact moment of the addition of thrombin, the time to clot is measured. The clotting time in seconds is interpolated from a standard curve made using various dilutions of assayed standard plasma. The following chapter includes detailed information on the Clauss fibrinogen assay. Other fibrinogen assays used include fibrinogen levels derived from prothrombin time assays and antigenic methods. Fibrinogen measurements using the prothrombin time and antigenic based assays are described in brief.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1450.126

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations61
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in molecular biologySame topicBlood properties and coagulationFrench-language works237,207