Studying the Effects of Oral Contraceptives on Coagulation Using a Mathematical Modeling Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The use of oral contraceptives (OCs) is known to increase the risk of thrombosis, but the mechanisms underlying this risk and the determinants of the tests that assess this risk are not fully understood. In this study, we used a mathematical model to study the effects of an OC containing levonorgestrel (lev) on blood clotting. Lev is reported to change the plasma levels of blood clotting factors. The mathematical model used in this study simulates coagulation reactions in a small injury under flow, takes clotting factors as inputs, and outputs time courses of the coagulation enzyme thrombin. To study the effects of lev, we created a virtual patient population with factor levels before and after lev use based on published patient data and conducted simulations to predict thrombin response for each individual virtual patient. After analyzing the simulated thrombin, we found that changes in factor levels due to lev increased the amount and speed of thrombin generation for all virtual patients. This suggested that the factor level changes alone can heighten the prothrombotic state of the model system. We extended the model to include generation of the inhibitor activated protein C (APC), so we could test the effects of lev on the systems’ sensitivity to APC. In line with literature reports, the use of lev increased the APC sensitivity, which correlates with increased thrombosis risk.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".