PB1200 Evaluation of the Association of Factor XIII at Hospital Arrival and Outcomes in a Cohort of Severely Injured Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In the absence of an internationally accepted standardized method for determining fibrin fiber diameter from scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis, a large discrepancy in fiber diameter has been reported in the literature for healthy individuals.This precludes interlaboratory comparison and prevents the establishment of normal and disease ranges, as are available for other cardiovascular disease risk factors.Aims: To develop a standardized protocol for determining fibrin fiber diameters from SEM analysis of plasma clots.Methods: We performed an extensive review of published protocols and synthesized a best practices protocol.This protocol describes, in detail, the steps for clot formation, washing, fixation, dehydration, drying (using both critical point and chemical drying), sputter coating and imaging.The protocol aims to preserve clot structure, and to maintain ionic strength and molality of blood through the fixation step.The protocol also aims to use materials that are widely available and has been tested by nine labs in six different countries.Human α-thrombin and fresh-frozen commercial pooled citrated plasma were provided to the participating labs.Results: Labs used the standardized protocol and their respective in-house protocols to prepare and process clots and determine fiber diameter values.These values will be compared and reported, as well as values obtained by centrally analyzing the diameter values using both manual measurement and an automated measurement tool (Diameter J, an Image J plug-in). Conclusion(s):The proposed standardized protocol should aid in diminishing discrepancies in fibrin fiber diameter determination via SEM analysis.This will facilitate interpretation of results, allow direct comparison of data between laboratories and aid in the development of ranges for healthy, prothrombotic and hemophilic individuals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".