Extended sample storage for platelet function testing in healthy dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Platelet function testing is important for monitoring the effects of antiplatelet therapy but is not readily used due to time constraints for testing and the need for specialized equipment. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the effects of various storage methods on selected platelet function tests to determine if delayed platelet function testing is feasible in canine blood samples. Our hypotheses were that platelet function would not decline during storage and, thus, no differences in test results would be found over time. METHODS: Thirteen healthy dogs were studied. Citrated blood samples were tested with a Platelet Function Analyzer-200 (PFA), which mimics high-shear conditions, using P2Y and CADP cartridges, after being held at room temperature for 2 h and refrigerated for 24 and 48 h. Plateletworks (PW), which measures aggregation based on platelet counting, was performed on an optical hematology analyzer using 10-min-old native samples, citrated samples held at room temperature for 3-4 h and refrigerated for 24 and 48 h, and samples stored in the preservative solution, AGGFix, up to 7 days. RESULTS: PFA closure times increased with storage, especially with the P2Y cartridge. Median aggregation with fresh PW was 94%, and this was maintained at all time points (range of median values 88%-94%). Most samples showed decreased, yet still robust (>70%), aggregation with longer storage. Spontaneous aggregation in citrate was noted in most dogs. AGGFix stabilized platelet aggregates to allow for delayed testing. CONCLUSIONS: Delayed platelet function testing is feasible, but ranges of expected values may differ from tests using fresh samples.
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) | 0.001 | 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".