The DOI matches its Crossref record; 78 of the 78 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 134 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants
Open accessAbstract
The International Society on Haemostasis and Thrombosis (ISTH) and the British Committee for Standards in Haematology (BCSH) have recently updated their lupus anticoagulant (LA) detection guidelines. The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) subsequently will publish its first LA guideline. General agreement exists on issues such as sample preparation, the use of dilute Russell viper venom time (dRVVT) in diagnostic repertoires, the use of normalized ratios, calculations to demonstrate phospholipid dependence, calculations to demonstrate inhibition, and interpretive reporting. The ISTH recommendation to employ only dRVVT and activated partial thromboplastin time is not mirrored in the BCSH and CLSI documents. The potential for false negatives in mixing tests is acknowledged by all panels, yet they remain mandated by ISTH as there are occasions when they are crucial to diagnostic accuracy. BCSH indicates that a negative mixing test need not exclude the presence of a LA, and CLSI reprioritizes test order to screen-confirm-mix, the latter being considered unnecessary in specific circumstances. Opinions in the guidelines differ on setting cutoff levels (i.e., 97.5th vs. 99th percentile for normally distributed data). All guidelines cover testing of anticoagulated patients, more detail being given by BCSH and CLSI, who suggest that Taipan snake venom time is a useful adjunct test in patients receiving vitamin K antagonists. Although complete agreement is not apparent, the guidelines represent significant moves toward engendering common practices.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This review compares recent ISTH 2009, BCSH 2012, and CLSI 2014 guidelines for laboratory detection of lupus anticoagulants, highlighting commonalities and contrasts across preanalytical, assay, interpretive, and anticoagulated-patient issues. Although agreement exists on many practices, the guidelines differ on screening assay repertoire, cutoff percentiles, mixing-test placement, ratio denominators, and testing on anticoagulated patients.
Key findings
- All three guidelines agree on double centrifugation to platelet-poor plasma (<10 × 10⁹/L), inclusion of dRVVT in diagnostic repertoires, use of normalized ratios, calculations for phospholipid dependence and inhibition, interpretive reporting, and retesting in no less than 12 weeks; ISTH 2009 uniquely restricts screening to dRVVT plus aPTT, whereas BCSH 2012 and CLSI 2014 permit other assays.
- Cutoff/reference-interval differences are prominent: ISTH 2009 recommends the 99th percentile (mean + 2.3 SD for normally distributed data) but this is controversial because it states a minimum of 40 donors, whereas 120 has previously been recommended; BCSH 2012 and CLSI 2014 favor the 97.5th percentile if Gaussian, with BCSH suggesting validation of established cutoffs using 20 to 60 normal donors. CLSI 2014 normalizes against the RI mean, not the NPP value.
- Mixing-test strategy differs: ISTH 2009 uses screen-mix-confirm; BCSH 2012 uses screen-mix-confirm but states a negative mixing test need not exclude LA; CLSI 2014 reprioritizes to screen-confirm-mix, omitting mixing when initial testing is clear cut. All agree mixing tests use a 1:1 mixture of test plasma and NPP, and ISTH/CLSI support interpretation by ICA or a mixing-test-specific cutoff.
- For anticoagulated patients, all agree testing on VKA or therapeutic UFH should be postponed if possible; ISTH 2009 permits undiluted plasma if INR <1.5 and 1:1 NPP mixing if INR 1.5–3.0, while BCSH 2012 and CLSI 2014 use 1:1 NPP mixes without that INR restriction and suggest TSVT with ET or PNP for VKA patients. CLSI 2014 details newer anticoagulant interference: DTIs interfere with all LA assays, rivaroxaban affects dRVVT more than aPTT, and TSVT/ET may detect LA in patients on rivaroxaban.
Methods
- Narrative review comparing three guidelines: ISTH 2009, BCSH 2012, and CLSI 2014, with reference to prior literature and a summary table.
- No primary patient cohort or systematic search is described; the evidence base is the published guidelines and cited studies.
- Main analysis is thematic: preanalytical variables, reference intervals/cutoffs, screening tests, mixing tests, ratios, confirmatory tests, integrated testing, anticoagulated patients, and reporting.
Limitations
- The paper states that LA detection lacks gold standards and is challenged by antibody heterogeneity, reagent and analyzer variability, differing interpretation strategies, and incomplete agreement among contemporaneous guidelines; consensus guidelines rely heavily on expert opinion and are prone to bias.
- The paper notes that some recommendations are controversial or expert-opinion-based, such as the ISTH 99th-percentile donor minimum and mixing-test mandates, and that no guideline fully agrees with the others.
- Evident from the text: this is a narrative review without systematic review or meta-analysis or primary data, so conclusions reflect the author’s interpretation of selected guidelines and literature.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
70 Sources not found · 23 Own interpretation · 17 No basis given
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The potential for false negatives in mixing tests is acknowledged by all panels,”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is full consensus that blood for LA testing, collected into 0.109 mol/L trisodium citrate, must be rendered platelet poor by a process of double centrifugation, to achieve a final platelet count of < 10 Â 10 9 /L.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Preanalytical Variables
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a statistical example, performance of 10 screening tests, with only one needing to be positive for potentially defining positivity for the condition, could theoretically identify 12.5% of tested (normal) individuals as being positive for the condition using a 97.5th percentile cutoff.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Which Screening Tests to Use and How Many to Use?
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All three guidelines agree that confirmatory tests used to demonstrate phospholipid dependence must be based on the screening test(s) that was abnormal.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Confirmatory Tests
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Thus, a single centrifugation step may be inefficient for achieving the target of < 10 Â 10 9 /L in all samples.6”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Preanalytical Variables
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [6]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Residual platelet material in test plasma can shorten clotting times and mask the presence of LAs, particularly if plasma is frozen/thawed before analysis.5”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Preanalytical Variables
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [5]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Reagent variability necessitates use of locally derived reference intervals (RIs) specific to the reagent-analyzer pairings in use.[13][14][15]”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Generating Reference Intervals/Cutoff Levels
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [13]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [14]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [15]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“ethnic differences have also been described for dRVVT ratios that can lead to apparent false-positive screening tests.21”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Which Screening Tests to Use and How Many to Use?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [21]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“A persistent problem has been that different laboratories adopt a variety of modifications with their locally employed thromboplastin, such as the dilutions employed for screen and confirm tests, resulting in significant variability in diagnostic performance.36”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Which Screening Tests to Use and How Many to Use?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [36]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“That premise is particularly true for tissue-derived reagents although LA sensitivity and reagent variability are improved when recombinant reagents are employed.5,22,28”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Which Screening Tests to Use and How Many to Use?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [5]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [22]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [28]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“preparations of Taipan and Ecarin venom for use in LA assays have been available for some years from at least one manufacturer.38”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Which Screening Tests to Use and How Many to Use?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [38]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Several studies have shown that dPT detects clinically significant antibodies, some unreactive with dRVVT and aPTT.28,[32][33][34][35]”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Which Screening Tests to Use and How Many to Use?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [28]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [32]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [33]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The variation in epitope specificities, even for antibodies to domain I of β 2 glycoprotein I, 39 contributes to the fact that the dRVVT and aPTT combination alone cannot deliver diagnostic certainty.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Which Screening Tests to Use and How Many to Use?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [39]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An even greater number of normal individuals is required to generate a 99th percentile value from nonnormally distributed data.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Generating Reference Intervals/Cutoff Levels
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“considerable variability in diagnostic performance exists for reagents from different manufacturers for both tests.2,4,5,13,14,17,20”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Which Screening Tests to Use and How Many to Use?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [2]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [4]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [5]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“This paired system has demonstrated good diagnostic performance when used in conjunction with a dRVVT system.29,30”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Which Screening Tests to Use and How Many to Use?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [29]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [30]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“external quality assurance scheme reports continue to validate the pair as an optimal approach sufficient for LA detection/exclusion in most samples assessed.26,27”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Which Screening Tests to Use and How Many to Use?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [26]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [27]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“However, the possibility of a coexisting or alternative abnormality must be considered, and performance of both screen and confirm on 1:1 mixtures with NPP can aid discriminating between potent LA, LA þ coexisting abnormality, or non-LA abnormality.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > The Integrated Test and Mixing Study Debate
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [20]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [38]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [51]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“This improves inter-and intra-assay variation by mitigating differences in operator and/or analyzer performance, reagent quality and stability issues, and NPP clotting time variation with different reagents.13,14,55”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Ratios
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [13]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [14]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [55]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“All three guidelines concur that testing for LAs in patients receiving vitamin K antagonists (VKA) and therapeutic doses of unfractionated heparin (UFH) should be postponed until anticoagulation has been discontinued for a suitable period of time.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Testing Anticoagulated Patients
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites ISTH 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites BCSH 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites CLSI 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Detection of weaker LAs is a particular advantage of this approach, where the prolongation of a patient's basal clotting time is insufficient to exceed the upper reference limit of a screening test, yet the screen and confirm discrepancy reveals the antibody.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Integrated Testing
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [49]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [64]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [65]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“It has also been demonstrated that test and reagent type can influence the diagnostic efficacy of mixing tests.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > The Integrated Test and Mixing Study Debate
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [63]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [68]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“However, they inevitably risk diluting some antibodies such that even screen and confirm discordance does not manifest because the dilution compromises screening test elevation such that a significant difference is not apparent.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Integrated Testing
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [49]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [65]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“LAs with a degree of resistance against the “overwhelming” effect of confirmatory reagents can lead to a confirm result above the confirmatory test RI.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > The Integrated Test and Mixing Study Debate
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [48]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [51]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Assays with higher specificity are less likely to require mixing tests to clearly demonstrate the presence of a LA.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > The Integrated Test and Mixing Study Debate
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Again, screen and confirm mixing tests can be invaluable in this scenario by reducing the antibody's effects and revealing a screen and confirm discrepancy.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > The Integrated Test and Mixing Study Debate
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [48]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [51]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [62]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“There are occasions when screen and confirm for a genuine LA are elevated to a similar extent such that integrated testing on undiluted plasma generates a false-negative interpretation, implying a nonphospholipiddependent abnormality.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > The Integrated Test and Mixing Study Debate
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [48]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [51]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [62]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Many of these will nonetheless have generated a screen result sufficiently higher than the confirm to achieve a positive interpretation.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > The Integrated Test and Mixing Study Debate
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [48]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [51]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All confirmatory tests are versions of their parent screening test rendered LA unresponsive and the specific reference to such reagents in BCSH 2012 alludes to techniques pairing LAR and LA-unresponsive aPTT reagents.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Confirmatory Tests
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Ratios also compensate for the fact that NPP clotting times with paired screen and confirm reagents can differ.20”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Ratios
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [20]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Only CLSI 2014 gives evidenced detail of the potential interferences by the newer anticoagulants, information on which is still emerging.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > New Anticoagulants
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites CLSI 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Careful data interpretation of mixing tests has been shown to reveal LAs in some patients with INRs > 3.0.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Vitamin K Antagonists
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [38]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Although the multiple acquired factor deficiency of VKA anticoagulation can often be corrected in a mixing test and reveal a LA, there is no such correction with DTIs or factor Xa (FXa) inhibitors as there is usually no underlying factor deficiency.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > New Anticoagulants
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [17]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Both documents make an important point that negative testing in mixing studies on these patients does not exclude the presence of a LA because of the dilution effect.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Vitamin K Antagonists
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites BCSH 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites CLSI 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“LMWH has less effect on LA assays, particularly dRVVT reagents, as the heparin neutralizers are usually capable of covering prophylactic doses.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Vitamin K Antagonists
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“BCSH 2012 and CLSI 2014 indicate the possibility of false-positive interpretations when a PNP is used as a confirmatory test.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Vitamin K Antagonists
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites BCSH 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites CLSI 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- Probably not a substantial claim. 45
- It may state two separate claims as one. 47
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ISTH recommendation to employ only dRVVT and activated partial thromboplastin time is not mirrored in the BCSH and CLSI documents.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Opinions in the guidelines differ on setting cutoff levels (i.e., 97.5th vs. 99th percentile for normally distributed data).”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“General agreement exists on issues such as sample preparation, the use of dilute Russell viper venom time (dRVVT) in diagnostic repertoires,”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“agreement exists on issues such as sample preparation, the use of dilute Russell viper venom time (dRVVT) in diagnostic repertoires, the use of normalized ratios, calculations to demonstrate phospholipid dependence, calculations to demonstrate inhibition, and interpretive reporting.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CLSI reprioritizes test order to screen-confirm-mix, the latter being considered unnecessary in specific circumstances.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“BCSH indicates that a negative mixing test need not exclude the presence of a LA,”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The guidelines also differ on the recommended centrifugation technique, with ISTH 2009 recommending differential speeds on first and second spins.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Preanalytical Variables
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All guidelines cover testing of anticoagulated patients, more detail being given by BCSH and CLSI, who suggest that Taipan snake venom time is a useful adjunct test in patients receiving vitamin K antagonists.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“BCSH 2012 and CLSI 2014 discourage ultracentrifugation (> 5,000g) in the second step because it may generate microparticles.5,7”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Preanalytical Variables
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [5]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [7]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ISTH 2009 is the only document to specify dilute phospholipid, whereas phrasing in the other two guidelines can encompass routine aPTT reagents without dilute phospholipid but recognized to be (relatively) LAR.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Which Screening Tests to Use and How Many to Use?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is a clear continuum of views across the three guidelines concerning mixing tests.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Mixing Tests
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, neither BCSH 2012 nor CLSI 2014 restricts aPTT reagents based on activator alone.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Which Screening Tests to Use and How Many to Use?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“a recent study revealed that asymptomatic patients positive for all three of LA, anticardiolipin antibodies, and anti-β 2 glycoprotein I antibodies are at high risk of incurring a thromboembolic event, 12”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Preanalytical Variables
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [12]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No guideline before ISTH 2009 gave definitive advice for interpreting mixing tests, so it was especially welcome that this publication fully addresses the issue.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Mixing Tests
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“BCSH has championed this calculation since 1991, with a correction of 10% or more being indicative of the presence of a LA, whereas ISTH 2009 indicates that the cutoff should be locally derived.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Confirmatory Tests
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All guidelines agree that mixing tests should be performed on a 1:1 mixture of test plasma and NPP.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Mixing Tests
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Problems such as antibody heterogeneity, reagent and analyzer variability, differing interpretation strategies, and absence of gold standards continue to conspire against generation of unequivocally ideal diagnostic strategies.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: No gold standard method for LA detection exists.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Lupus anticoagulants (LA) are somewhat akin to subatomic particles and extrasolar planets, in that they are “detected” by inference, after exclusion of other possible causes of test findings.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although complete agreement is not apparent, the guidelines represent significant moves toward engendering common practices.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“yet they remain mandated by ISTH as there are occasions when they are crucial to diagnostic accuracy.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The previously fashionable filtration through 0.22 μm cellulose acetate filters is no longer recommended because it introduces variables such as loss of von Willebrand factor and some other coagulation factors.8”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Preanalytical Variables
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [8]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The BCSH 2012 recommendation to employ a LAR-aPTT or modified aPTT can reasonably be taken to include use of KCT, SCT, or dilute aPTT.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Which Screening Tests to Use and How Many to Use?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“It has long been recognized that no single assay system will detect all LAs and therefore multiple assays, using differing analytical principles, are required to achieve acceptable detection rates.19,20”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Which Screening Tests to Use and How Many to Use?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [19]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [20]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These non-LA examples, however, would not normally lead to false-positive composite interpretation, for the reasons described above, and the issue becomes more that of performing unnecessary confirmatory tests.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Which Screening Tests to Use and How Many to Use?
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“data from normal donor populations for clotting tests are commonly Gaussian or near Gaussian, or can be made so by data transformation, 14,16 although this requires confirmation with each assessment to enable data to be suitable for parametric statistics.17”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Generating Reference Intervals/Cutoff Levels
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [14]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [16]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [17]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“inconsistent sensitivity of aPTT reagents to LA is largely due to variation in phospholipid concentration or composition and ellagic acid-containing reagents can be suitable for LA detection.17,25,31”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Which Screening Tests to Use and How Many to Use?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [17]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [25]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [31]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“this test procedure has repeatedly been shown to be sensitive to β 2 glycoprotein Idependent antibodies and highly correlate with thrombosis.22”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Which Screening Tests to Use and How Many to Use?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [22]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“an important limitation for the KCT is that it lacks a widely available confirmatory test, thereby compromising specificity by not fulfilling an indispensable diagnostic criterion.28”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Which Screening Tests to Use and How Many to Use?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [28]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The kaolin clotting time (KCT) is often quoted as being one of the most sensitive assays for LA because of its extremely low phospholipid concentration.5”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Which Screening Tests to Use and How Many to Use?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [5]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Preliminary routine coagulation screening, including prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), and thrombin time, are crucial before LA testing to exclude undiagnosed coagulopathies or undisclosed anticoagulant therapy.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Preanalytical Variables
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“the guideline states that a 99th percentile value can be derived from a minimum of 40 donors, yet this is not the case and a minimum of 120 has been previously recommended.18”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Generating Reference Intervals/Cutoff Levels
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [18]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainn = 120- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An important point is made that an elevated LA screening test in isolation is not a false-positive result but merely a prolonged clotting time requiring confirmatory tests to reveal whether or not the initial abnormality is due to a LA.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Generating Reference Intervals/Cutoff Levels
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Technical difficulties such as meticulous sample handling, long clotting times, and variation in residual lipid mean that reproducibility is poor relative to other tests and these issues provide the reasons that ISTH 2009 does not recommend this assay.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Which Screening Tests to Use and How Many to Use?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Statistical outliers or other causes of prolonged clotting times will usually generate an equally elevated confirmatory test result for that assay, and crucially, not generate a false-positive interpretation.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Generating Reference Intervals/Cutoff Levels
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is impractical and probably unnecessary for all laboratories to adopt extensive LA-assay repertoires, but there is a case for the use of additional assays in select patients or circumstances.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Which Screening Tests to Use and How Many to Use?
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“although most commercial dRVVT reagents behave similarly, potentially suggesting common manufacturing practices, occasional deviations in behavior occur.23”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Which Screening Tests to Use and How Many to Use?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [23]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Diluting a phospholipid preparation of LA-unresponsive composition may not perform as well as an undiluted LAR preparation, 19,24 yet the latter risks missing weaker antibodies if the phospholipid is too concentrated.22,25”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Which Screening Tests to Use and How Many to Use?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [19]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [24]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [22]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“New or alternative assays are commonly evaluated against dRVVT and/or aPTT, and are thus disadvantaged because they may be sensitive to different antibody subpopulations.Comparison against the dRVVT/aPTT combination ostensibly creates a selection bias.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Which Screening Tests to Use and How Many to Use?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“these assays can detect clinically significant antibodies undetectable in dRVVT and aPTT as well as many that are.28”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Which Screening Tests to Use and How Many to Use?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [28]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A false-positive screening test obtained from the use of the 97.5th percentile will not generate false-positive composite interpretation, yet a false-negative resulting from application of the 99th percentile could lead to failure to secure appropriate diagnosis and treatment.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Generating Reference Intervals/Cutoff Levels
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it is likely that some patients will generate an elevated screening test with at least one test/reagent type, with the chance on this increasing the more tests performed.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Which Screening Tests to Use and How Many to Use?
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The relatively recent availability of a standardized commercially available reagent kit has led to the suggestion that LA detection is improved when dRVVT and aPTT are accompanied by dPT.34,37”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Which Screening Tests to Use and How Many to Use?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [34]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [37]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This introduces potential to reduce the frequency of false-positive results and thereby increase specificity, yet it is a statistical inevitability that this will reduce sensitivity.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Generating Reference Intervals/Cutoff Levels
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The less commonly employed assays can detect LA that will not manifest in dRVVT and aPTT, and at least some of these antibodies are clinically significant.28,[32][33][34][35][40][41][42][43]”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Which Screening Tests to Use and How Many to Use?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [28]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [32]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [33]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The CLSI 2014 recommendations for when mixing tests can be omitted or not, crystallize this debate, and they affirm that the decision can only be made on a case-by-case basis.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > The Integrated Test and Mixing Study Debate
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites CLSI 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“the confirmatory test (on undiluted plasma) must not only mathematically correct an elevated screening test result but should also return into the RI.51”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Mixing Tests
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [51]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“A statement in ISTH 2009 that performing screen and confirm tests in parallel on undiluted plasma does not, in principle, require subsequent performance of a mixing test and has prompted useful and revealing debate.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > The Integrated Test and Mixing Study Debate
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites ISTH 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The lower cutoff increases sensitivity in comparison to assessing against the cutoff for undiluted plasma.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Mixing Tests
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Establishing the RI and its mean by analyzing normal donors over several days accounts for innate technique variability, 18 and running an NPP as a normal control will identify sudden analytical difficulties.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Ratios
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [18]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Although considered rare, the LA cofactor effect cannot, by definition, be demonstrated without mixing tests, and integrated testing alone will not detect this phenomenon.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > The Integrated Test and Mixing Study Debate
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [62]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [66]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“in the absence of other causes of prolonged clotting times, samples with negative mixing tests but clear positive screen and confirm tests on undiluted plasma can be considered LA positive.[44][45][46]”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Mixing Tests
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [44]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [45]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [46]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“some laboratories apply only the mixing test in response to an elevated aPTT and are at risk of both loss of specificity and increased false-negative interpretations unless dRVVT testing is also positive.[44][45][46][47][48][49]57,58”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Confirmatory Tests
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [44]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [45]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [46]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“CLSI 2014 reserves its definition of integrated tests for those that incorporate dilution in NPP, while ISTH 2009 includes those performed on undiluted test plasma and a separate mixing test.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Integrated Testing
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites CLSI 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites ISTH 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“not all NPPs, or batches of the same NPP, generate the same clotting times with different reagents for the same test type, 13,14,55,57 so that false-positive and false-negative results can ensue if an NPP value is toward or beyond an extreme of a RI.55”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Ratios
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [13]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [14]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [55]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“no mathematical method for assessing mixing test data can perfectly discriminate between factor deficiencies and inhibitors, and cutoffs vary between test types and reagents.53,54”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Mixing Tests
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [53]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [54]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“BCSH 2012 indicates that brief discontinuation of VKA therapy is not a high-risk strategy in most cases, where decisions on advisability of long-term anticoagulation are required.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Testing Anticoagulated Patients
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites BCSH 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The principle arises from the fact that the traditional testing order of screen-mix-confirm is circumvented and the presence of a LA can be immediately apparent without performing the mixing test.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > The Integrated Test and Mixing Study Debate
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“All three guidelines state that the numerical results should be accompanied by an interpretation indicating whether the findings are consistent with the presence or absence of an LA (or more correctly the inability to detect an LA).”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Reporting
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites ISTH 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites BCSH 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites CLSI 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“If the INR is between 1.5 and 3.0, undertaking the tests on 1:1 mixtures with NPP can be considered, with recognition of the dilution effect.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Vitamin K Antagonists
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites ISTH 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is more debate to be had about the place of mixing tests in the LA analytical hierarchy, although it does seem that they can be omitted in certain circumstances.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Conclusion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“ISTH 2009 indicates that dRVVT and aPTT can be performed on undiluted plasma if the international normalized ratio (INR) is less than 1.5.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Vitamin K Antagonists
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites ISTH 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“BCSH 2012 states that an elevated screen on the mixture can be taken as grounds to suspect an inhibitor and the confirm will demonstrate phospholipid dependence.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Vitamin K Antagonists
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites BCSH 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“BCSH 2012 and CLSI 2014 consider that there is sufficient evidence for other tests that they should not be discounted in their entirety.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites BCSH 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites CLSI 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“BCSH 2012 and CLSI 2014 advocate performing screen and confirm tests on 1:1 mixtures with NPP but do not restrict this practice to plasmas with INRs 3.0.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Vitamin K Antagonists
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites BCSH 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites CLSI 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Direct thrombin inhibitors (DTI), such as dabigatran and argatroban, interfere with all LA assays and introduce a significant risk of falsepositive results.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > New Anticoagulants
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [17]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [74]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Testing undiluted plasma can lead to false-positive or false-negative results, and is thus not recommended, 13,17,20,69 although some workers contend that it can be reliable.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Vitamin K Antagonists
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [13]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [17]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [20]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [69]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Each document supports the recommendation to retest in no less than 12 weeks when a LA is initially detected.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Reporting
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites ISTH 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites BCSH 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites CLSI 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“CLSI 2014 discusses reagent-integral heparin neutralizers (as found in most commercial dRVVT reagents) in more detail, indicating that they quench heparin only up to a specified level, and it must be demonstrated that this has occurred before result interpretation is undertaken.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Vitamin K Antagonists
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites CLSI 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“ISTH 2009 discourages use of comments such as “borderline” while CLSI 2014 suggests that the use of “indeterminate” can be useful where a panel of assay results does not permit clear distinction between LA detection or lack thereof.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Reporting
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites ISTH 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites CLSI 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The FXa inhibitor rivaroxaban interferes with dRVVT analysis for LA more so than aPTT and has a variable, reagent-dependent effect on prothrombin time-based assays.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > New Anticoagulants
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [17]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [75]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [76]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [77]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ISTH 2009 recommendation to employ only dRVVT and aPTT is not surprising since there is a wealth of evidence, unlikely to be surpassed, that this pairing constitutes a sensitive and specific diagnostic strategy.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Conclusion
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“TSVT coupled with ET has been shown to be a sensitive test for detecting LAs in patients receiving rivaroxaban because both venom fractions are prothrombin activators and thus unaffected by FXa inhibition.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > New Anticoagulants
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [76]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Integrated tests and procedures employing “VKA-insensitive” snake venoms are not recommended as it is suggested that they require further critical evaluation.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Vitamin K Antagonists
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites ISTH 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) can be employed.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Testing Anticoagulated Patients
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites BCSH 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Both ISTH 2009 and CLSI 2014 urge caution when interpreting results on patients receiving UFH, while BCSH 2012 specifies that LA testing should not be undertaken on patients receiving therapeutic doses as it may cause erroneous results.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Vitamin K Antagonists
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites ISTH 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites CLSI 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites BCSH 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper relies on this without support.
No gold standard method for LA detection exists.
“Problems such as antibody heterogeneity, reagent and analyzer variability, differing interpretation strategies, and absence of gold standards continue to conspire against generation of unequivocally ideal diagnostic strategies.”
“CLSI 2014 deliberately avoids the use of “LAsensitive/LA-insensitive” terminology, based on the concept that “LA sensitivity” is difficult to appropriately define due to the lack of any “gold standard” LA detection method.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Diagnostic laboratories are often asked to test for LAs in anticoagulated patients, often without knowing a patient is receiving them until laboratory results suggest so.
“However, the reality for diagnostic laboratories is that they are often asked to test for LAs in anticoagulated patients, often without knowing a patient is receiving them until laboratory results suggest so, and guidance is required.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“As a result, there are currently no established gold standard assays or reference plasmas for LA detection [[6], [7], [8], [9], [10]].”
From Comparison of different algorithms for lupus anticoagulant detection: a single-center experience (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“PNP is very important for the standardization of the mixing test; it should be platelet-free, its content of each coagulation factor should be close to 100%, and it should be obtained from at least 20–40 healthy donors (males and females) [9,48].”
From Lupus Anticoagulant Detection under the Magnifying Glass (2023) · cites this paper as [48]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Clotting times of screening, mixing, and confirmatory procedures are prone to inter- (between same-principle tests offered by different manufacturers) and intra-assay (between batches of the same reagent) variability [25]; for this reason, it is recommended to normalize a screening, mixing, and confirmatory clotting time, generating a ratio between test clotting time and NPP clotting time [9,36,48”
From Lupus Anticoagulant Detection under the Magnifying Glass (2023) · cites this paper as [48]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Technical and practical issues, including test algorithms, interpretation parameters, cutoff values, and methods of interpretation, are problematic in many laboratories [6,8,9,21].”
From Comparison of different algorithms for lupus anticoagulant detection: a single-center experience (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Preanalytical Variables
“There is full consensus that blood for LA testing, collected into 0.109 mol/L trisodium citrate, must be rendered platelet poor by a process of double centrifugation, to achieve a final platelet count of < 10 Â 10 9 /L.”
§ Recent Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Detection of Lupus Anticoagulants > Preanalytical Variables
“the second centrifugation step is necessary if the requisite plate-let reduction is not achieved by a single centrifugation.”
Citations
Cites
MIYAKIS, S., LOCKSHIN, M. D., ATSUMI, T., BRANCH, D. W., BREY, R. L., CERVERA, R., DERKSEN, R. H. W. M., DE GROOT, P. G., KOIKE, T., MERONI, P. L., et al. (2006) · Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis · doi:10.1111/j.1538-7836.2006.01753.x · Cited by 7,203 · cited 1×
“15 In common with many other analytes, RIs for LA assays have historically been derived from the RI mean (cid”
MethodUpdate of the guidelines for lupus anticoagulant detection
PENGO, V., TRIPODI, A., REBER, G., RAND, J. H., ORTEL, T. L., GALLI, M., & DE GROOT, P. G. (2009) · Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis · doi:10.1111/j.1538-7836.2009.03555.x · Cited by 1,197 · cited 1×
“2,4,5,13,14,17,20 In addition, although most commercial dRVVTreagents behave similarly, potentially suggesting common manufacturing practices, occasional deviations in behavior occur.”
BackgroundBrandt, J. T., Triplett, D. A., Alving, B. M., & Scharrer, I. (1995) · PubMed · Cited by 1,164
Brandt, J. T., Triplett, D. A., Alving, B., & Scharrer, I. (1995) · Thrombosis and Haemostasis · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1649901 · Cited by 993
Guidelines on the investigation and management of antiphospholipid syndrome
Keeling, D., Mackie, I., Moore, G. W., Greer, I. A., Greaves, M., & British Committee for Standards in Haematology (2012) · British Journal of Haematology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2141.2012.09037.x · Cited by 740 · cited 2×
“20 BCSH has recommended this practice since 1991 3,20,56 and it is adopted by ISTH 2009.”
BackgroundSelf-citationPengo, V., Ruffatti, A., Legnani, C., Testa, S., Fierro, T., Marongiu, F., De Micheli, V., Gresele, P., Tonello, M., Ghirarduzzi, A., et al. (2011) · Blood · doi:10.1182/blood-2011-03-340232 · Cited by 468
Guidelines On The Investigation and Management Of The Antiphospholipid Syndrome
Greaves, M., Cohen, H., Machin, S. J., & Mackie, I. J. (2000) · British Journal of Haematology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2141.2000.02069.x · Cited by 294
(2004) · PubMed · Cited by 218
Lupus anticoagulants and the risk of a first episode of deep venous thrombosis
DE GROOT, P. G., LUTTERS, B., DERKSEN, R. H. W. M., LISMAN, T., MEIJERS, J. C. M., & ROSENDAAL, F. R. (2005) · Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis · doi:10.1111/j.1538-7836.2005.01485.x · Cited by 205
Detection and Quantitative Evaluation of Lupus Circulating Anticoagulant Activity
Rosner, E., Pauzner, R., Lusky, A., Modan, M., & Many, A. (1987) · Thrombosis and Haemostasis · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1651083 · Cited by 188 · cited 1×
“The alternative is application of the indexof circulating anticoagulant (ICA) 52 as shown below: The ICA is advantageous because it assesses test plasma clotting times relative to the NPP in which it is diluted.”
Method
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- CLSI. Defining, Establishing, and Verifying Reference Intervals in the Clinical Laboratory; Approved Guideline-Third Edition. CLSI document EP28-A3c. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Stand- ards Institute; 2008
- Moore GW. Clinical utility of the less commonly employed assays for lupus anticoagulation detection: the evidence. J Coag Dis 2010; 2:69-79
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The clinical significance of antiphospholipid antibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus
Ünlü, O., Zuily, S., & Erkan, D. (2015) · European Journal of Rheumatology · doi:10.5152/eurjrheum.2015.0085 · Cited by 212
Diagnosis and management of the antiphospholipid syndrome
Chaturvedi, S., & McCrae, K. R. (2017) · Blood Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.blre.2017.07.006 · Cited by 195
Favaloro, E. J., & Wong, R. C. W. (2014) · Pathology · doi:10.1097/pat.0000000000000142 · Cited by 75
“Modified from Moore.(70) APTT, activated partial thromboplastin time; BCSH, British Committee for Standards in Haematology; CLSI, Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; DOAC, direct oral anticoagulants; dRVVT, dilute Russell’s viper venom time; ET, Ecarin time; ICA, index of circulating anticoagulant; INR, inter…”
MethodEdoxaban: Impact on routine and specific coagulation assays
Châtelain, B., Chatelain, C., Douxfils, J., Dogné, J., & Mullier, F. (2015) · Thrombosis and Haemostasis · doi:10.1160/th15-05-0415 · Cited by 80
Tripodi, A., Ageno, W., Ciaccio, M., Legnani, C., Lippi, G., Manotti, C., Marcucci, R., Moia, M., Morelli, B., Poli, D., et al. (2018) · Blood transfusion · doi:10.2450/2017.0124-17 · Cited by 65
Metadata
- Authors
- Moore, G.
- Affiliations
- St Thomas' Hospital (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Moore, Gary
- ORCID
- Moore, Gary
- Venue
- Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis
- Publisher
- Georg Thieme Verlag KG
- Published
- 2014-02-05
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 02
- Pages
- 163-171
- ISSN
- 0094-6176 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-9064
- OpenAlex
- W2084030336
- Cited by
- 149
- References
- 77
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 7
- FWCI
- 12.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Blood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia and Thrombosis
- Keywords
- lupus anticoagulant, dilute Russell viper venom time, activated partial thromboplastin time, mixing test, phospholipid dependence, cut-off values, anticoagulated patients, vitamin K antagonists, CLSI
- MeSH terms
- Anticoagulants, Blood Coagulation Tests, Humans, Reagent Kits, Diagnostic, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Lupus Coagulation Inhibitor, Antiphospholipid Syndrome, Guidelines as Topic, Clinical Laboratory Techniques
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
