MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410864556 · doi:10.3390/polym17111515

Impact of BMI and PRP Platelet and Red Blood Cell Content on the Coagulation Kinetics of Ortho-R/PRP Mixtures

2025· article· en· W4410864556 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anik Chevrier, Marc Lavertu

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymers · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoagulationPlatelet-rich plasmaPlateletKineticsChemistryHematocritThromboelastographyFibrinogenChromatographyBiophysicsImmunologyInternal medicineMedicineBiochemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ortho-R (ChitogenX Inc., Kirkland, QC, Canada) is a lyophilized chitosan formulation that also contains calcium chloride and trehalose. Ortho-R was designed to be solubilized in autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP), a blood-derived component, in order to become an injectable implant that augments the surgical repair of soft tissues. The Ortho-R/PRP formulation coagulates post-application, similarly to blood. Having the ability to predict the speed of coagulation of an Ortho-R/PRP mixture prepared with PRP isolated from a specific patient would be an advantage in the operating room. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether human donor characteristics (age, sex, body mass index, habits) and autologous PRP properties would have an impact on Ortho-R/PRP mixture coagulation. Clot maximal amplitude and shear elastic modulus were significantly positively correlated with body mass index and platelet concentration in the isolated PRPs. Clot formation time, maximal amplitude and shear elastic modulus were all negatively correlated with PRP red blood cell concentration (and associated hemoglobin and hematocrit content). Donor characteristics were not good predictors of coagulation kinetics in Ortho-R/PRP mixtures. Some of the isolated PRP properties were better predictors of Ortho-R/PRP coagulation kinetics. However, predicting how an Ortho-R/PRP mixture from a particular patient will coagulate is very difficult since all PRP isolation devices yield heterogeneous PRPs and analysis of the isolated PRPs occurs post-administration.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymersSame topicPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207