MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405054908 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-204241

Ability of Coagulation Tests to Assess Hemotherapeutic Agent Response Testing

2024· article· en· W4405054908 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sheldon Goldstein, William M. Briggs, Michael A. Cirullo, Michael Kagan, Morayma Reyes Gil

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoagulation testingCoagulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Hemotherapeutic agents (HA) administered in response to abnormal coagulation tests may not be optimal, for abnormal tests do not identify specific deficient coagulation factors. The Multiple Coagulation Test System (MCTS) (Coagulation Sciences, Riverdale, NY) is developed to perform Hemotherapeutic Agent Response Testing (HART) to compare ability of HA (blood products, factors and drugs) to normalize clotting. In MCTS, after HA added to blood, a steel ball moves through blood as a cartridge moves in a see-saw motion. As blood clots, changes in motion of the steel ball result in changes in voltage applied to a magnetic field. These changes indicate clot formation. The goal of the study is to compare coagulation tests and assess probabilities (PROB) of the tests to generate dose-response (DR) curves for high-dose HA vs. low-dose HA vs. coagulopathic samples, in four hemostatic states in five coagulopathic models. Methods: With IRB approval and informed consent 40 volunteers donated fresh whole blood (FWB) (Step A). Contrived whole blood samples of severe hemophilia, Von Willebrand Disease, dilution, hypofibrinogenemia and F:VII deficiency were created. FWB was centrifuged at 3000 g X 15 minutes. Platelet-deficient plasma (PDP) was pipetted avoiding the buffy coat. Factor-deficient diluents were added to RBC and buffy coat in volume equal to PDP removed, to create severely coagulopathic blood (Step B). Diluents that replaced PDP to create coagulopathies were: factor-VIII deficient plasma, George King Biomedical, Overland Park, KS (GKB) for hemophilia; type III VWD plasma, GKB, for VWD; 5% albumin, Grifols, Los Angeles, CA for dilution; fibrinogen-depleted plasma, Affinity Biologicals, Ancaster, ON, Canada for hypofibrinogenemia; F:VII-deficient plasma, GKB, for F:VII deficiency. HA were added to step B blood to treat coagulopathies in doses of 20% and 100% of factors, resulting in step B samples treated with low-dose HA (step C) and high-dose HA (step D). HA agents were Humate-P, CSL Behring (CSL), King of Prussia, PA for hemophilia and VWD; HemosIL normal assayed plasma, Instrumentation Laboratory, Bedford, MA for dilution; RiaSTAP, CSL for hypofibrinogenemia; reagent grade F:VIIa, Enzyme Research Laboratories, South Bend, IN for F:VII deficiency. At A, B, C and D tests performed included activated clotting time (ACT), thromboelastogram (TEG), ProTime (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), MCTS Clotting Time (MCTS-CT), and factor levels appropriate for each coagulopathy. A random-intercept hierarchal mixed regression model assessed differences in tests at B, C, and D vs A. The model was recast into Bayesian form. Default priors and 4 chains of 50,000 iterations each were used to reach convergence. Predictive posterior distributions, by averaging over assumed new samples, were calculated for scenarios, e.g., probability ACT in high-dose HA would clot faster than low-dose HA. A DR curve was modeled, calculating PROB a high-dose HA would clot faster than low-dose and, simultaneously, that low-dose HA would clot faster than coagulopathic. The higher the PROB, the greater chance a DR exists. These are ordinary PROBS; not p-values or parameter estimates. i.e. chance that in new samples, high-dose HA would clot faster than low-dose. Sample size calculations based on paired differences of coagulopathic to normal MCTS-CT, with power of 90% and a test level of 0.05, assuming difference 200 seconds lower than the baseline 400 seconds, with a standard deviation of 100 seconds, indicated a sample size of n = 10. Results: Due to cost once a vial of HA was opened we performed as many experiments that day as possible, explaining n = 11 or 12 for some experiments. Factor levels confirmed coagulopathies were created and treated. Tests with 1st and 2nd highest PROB of demonstrating DR curve for hemophilia APTT (PROB 0.931) and MCTS (PROB 0.78); VWD, APTT (PROB 0.995) and MCTS (PROB 0.934); for hemodilution, APTT (PROB 0.997) and ACT (PROB 0.989); for hypofibrinogenemia, TEG-MA (PROB 0.996) and TEG-G (PROB 0.916); for F:VII deficiency, APTT (PROB 0.758) and MCTS (PROB 0.746). Conclusion: Different tests had greater PROB for different coagulopathic models. As other tests, MCTS differentiated between hemostatic states. Optimizing doses of HA may improve MCTS performance. If MCTS can perform automated HART, treatment truly targeted to each patient's unique coagulopathy may become a reality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.201
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlFrench-language works237,207