Association of laboratory test results with the bleeding history in patients with inherited platelet function disorders (the Bleeding Assesment Tool - LABoratory tests substudy): communication from the Platelet Physiology ISTH-SSC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background In hemophilia and von Willebrand disease, the degree of alteration of laboratory assays correlates with bleeding manifestations. Few studies have assessed the predictive value for bleeding of laboratory assays in patients with inherited platelet function disorders (IPFDs). Objectives To assess whether there is an association between platelet function assay results and bleeding history, as evaluated by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) bleeding assessment tool (BAT). Methods Centers participating in the international ISTH-BAT validation study were asked to provide results of the diagnostic assays employed for the patients they enrolled, and the association with the individual patients' bleeding score (BS) was assessed. Results Sixty-eight patients with 14 different IPFDs were included. Maximal amplitude of platelet aggregation was significantly lower in patients with a pathologic BS and correlated inversely with the BS, a finding largely driven by the subgroup of patients with Glanzmann thrombasthenia and CalDAG-GEFI deficiency; after their exclusion, TRAP-induced aggregation remained significantly lower in patients with a pathologic BS. Bleeding time was significantly more prolonged in patients with a high BS than in those with a normal BS (27.1 ± 6.2 minutes vs 15.1 ± 10.6 minutes; P < .01). Reduced α-granule content was significantly more common among patients with a pathologic BS than among those with a normal BS (80% vs 20%; P < .05). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis revealed a significant discriminative ability of all the aforementioned tests for pathologic BS ( P < .001), also after exclusion of patients with Glanzmann thrombasthenia and CalDAG-GEFI deficiency. Conclusion This study shows that altered platelet laboratory assay results are associated with an abnormal ISTH-BAT BS in IPFD.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".