ArticleBlood advances2024
Plasmin generation analysis in patients with bleeding disorder of unknown cause.
Article in Blood advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A multicenter prospective observational cohort study to improve diagnostic yield and clinical management of persons with a Bleeding Disorder of Unknown Cause (BDUC-iN study protocol).Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Observational
- Abnormal whole-blood viscoelastic test results in patients with bleeding disorder of unknown cause.Blood vessels, thrombosis & hemostasis · 2026Article
- Targeting hemostatic enzymes: from mechanistic insights to therapeutic frontiers.Current opinion in hematology · 2025Review
- A Contemporary Review of Plasminogen Activator Inhibitor Type 1: Structure, Function, Genetic Architecture, and Intracellular/Extracellular Roles.TH open : companion journal to thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Review
- Altered clot structure in pregnant women who will develop postpartum hemorrhage.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
abstractBleeding disorder of unknown cause (BDUC) is a diagnosis of exclusion after evaluation of plasma coagulation and platelet function. Patients with BDUC (n = 375) recorded in the Vienna Bleeding Biobank were analyzed in comparison with healthy controls (HCs; n = 100) in this case-control study. Plasmin generation (PG) parameters were analyzed using calibrated fluorescence detection in citrated plasma. Turbidimetric plasma clot formation/lysis of 293 (78%) patients with BDUC and confocal microscopy of clots from representative patients with BDUC (n = 6) and HCs (n = 9) were assessed. In the PG analysis, patients with BDUC exhibited lower velocity and peak plasmin levels but a higher endogenous plasmin potential than HCs. Peak plasmin levels correlated with maximum clot absorbance but not with clot lysis time. Clot absorbance is an indicator of clot fiber density. Confocal microscopy analysis revealed a tendency towards thicker fibers in clots of patients with BDUC, which negatively correlated with peak plasmin (r = -0.561; P = .030). Peak plasmin correlated weakly with factor XIII, but not with other fibrinolytic factors (alpha2-antiplasmin, thrombin activatable fibrinolysis inhibitor, or plasminogen activator inhibitor 1) or bleeding severity. A model comprising fibrinogen and parameters of PG yielded high predictive power in discriminating between patients with BDUC and HCs across a fivefold stratified cross validation (80% of data; mean area under the curve [AUC], 0.847). The model generalized well to unseen data (20% of data; AUC, 0.856). Overall, patients with BDUC counterintuitively exhibited reduced peak plasmin levels, potentially related to altered clot structure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.