MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410635176 · doi:10.1016/j.rpth.2025.102899

Investigating interassay variability between direct oral anticoagulant calibrated anti–factor Xa assays: a substudy of the perioperative anticoagulation use for surgery evaluation (PAUSE) trial

2025· article· en· W4410635176 on OpenAlexaff
Rita Selby, Karen A. Moffat, Melanie St John, Alex C. Spyropoulos, Sam Schulman, James D. Douketis

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsThrombosis and Atherosclerosis Research InstituteHamilton Regional Laboratory Medicine ProgramMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Direct oral anticoagulant calibrated anti-factor Xa (FXa) assays can assess residual anticoagulant levels in patients requiring urgent procedures or surgery. However, previous studies have shown variability between anti-FXa levels determined by different instrument-reagent combinations. This may be related to use of lyophilized samples, direct oral anticoagulant-spiked plasma, or interlaboratory variation. Objectives: 1) Determine the interassay variability in anti-FXa levels using 3 common instrument-reagent combinations. 2) Determine if differences between these combinations are clinically relevant. Methods: Seventy apixaban and 59 rivaroxaban samples from participants in the Perioperative Anticoagulation Use for Surgery Evaluation trial were simultaneously tested using Biophen reagents on the BCS XP analyzer (Siemens), HemosIL reagents on the ACL TOP analyzer (Werfen), and Stago reagents on the STA CompactMAX analyzer (Diagnostica Stago). Interassay correlations were analyzed at the predetermined cutoff of 30 ng/mL and compared with median anti-FXa levels. Results: = 0.6531-0.9702). Anti-FXa levels were also significantly different between all instrument-reagent combinations in the < 30 ng/mL group. In the ≥ 30 ng/mL group, apixaban was significantly different in all combinations, while rivaroxaban only differed between Biophen/BCS XP and Stago/STA CompactMAX. 7.8% (10/129) of samples were discrepantly classified across the 30 ng/mL threshold. Conclusions: Anti-FXa levels determined by 3 common instrument-reagent combinations show moderate-to-very strong correlations with each other. Although there are statistically significant differences between median anti-FXa levels these differences are not clinically significant, and result in discrepant classification across the 30 ng/mL threshold in only 7.8% of samples.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.565
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.029 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch and Practice in Thrombosis and HaemostasisSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207