Determination of clopidogrel effect in cats using point-of-care Plateletworks ADP and shipped samples for PFA-200 analysis in a clinical practice setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Clopidogrel is the recommended first-line antithrombotic in cats for a variety of conditions; however, it is ineffective in 15–20% of cats. The determination of clopidogrel effectiveness with platelet function assays has historically been limited to specialty centers; however, recent work has suggested that in-hospital or shipped analyses of samples may be feasible. The aim of the present study was to investigate the utility of an in-house analysis and shipping of blood samples collected in primary practices for the determination of clopidogrel effectiveness. Methods Citrated blood samples were collected from cats receiving clopidogrel therapy by veterinarians in clinical practices across Canada, a median of 304.4 km from the reference laboratory (range 8–4425). Samples were analyzed in-house using Plateletworks ADP and shipped for remote analysis using PFA-200 P2Y and COL/ADP cartridges. Results A total of 30 samples were collected from 25 cats. Of these, the percentage of samples analyzable for the presence or absence of the clopidogrel effect was 86% for Plateletworks ADP, 90% for PFA-200 P2Y and 87% for PFA-200 COL/ADP. There was no significant difference in the number of samples unable to be analyzed by each modality ( P = 0.689) due to flow obstruction or other sample characteristics. The prevalence of absence of clopidogrel effectiveness on platelet function assays was 8% with the PFA-200 COL/ADP assay, 25% with the PFA-200 P2Y assay and 30% with the Plateletworks ADP assay. Conclusions and relevance The results of this study confirm that samples of feline blood can be collected in clinical practices and shipped to a reference laboratory for PFA-200 analysis with a high rate of success, comparable to point-of-care analysis.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".