Risk of intrapleural hemorrhage following thoracocenthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Diagnostic or therapeutic thoracocenthesis is usually a simple and safe procedure. The extent to which coagulation abnormalities induced by antithrombotic therapy (ATT) increase the risk of of intrapleural hemorrhage following thoracocenthesis is unknown. Objective: To examine the risk of intrapleural hemorrhage following diagnostic or therapeutic thoracocenthesis in patients with or without ATT. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all the diagnostic or therapeutic thoracocentheses performed in our institution over a three-year period (2007-2009). We considered only the procedures performed without ultrasonic guidance. Antiplatelets and anticoagulant therapy at the time of the procedure were recorded. Coagulation parameters (international normalized ratio, partial thromboplastin time, platelet count) and hemoglobin level were also noted. We defined intrapleural hemorrhage as either a recurrent pleural effusion with a fall in hemoglobin >20 grams/liter, or a hemothorax necessitating pleural drainage. Results: A total of 695 patients underwent 955 thoracocentheses; data were available from 940 of them. 738 procedures (78.5%) were performed on patients on either antiplatelets or anticoagulant therapy. Overall, 7 intrapleural hemorrhages were noted (overall incidence rate: 0.7%), all in patients with antithrombotic therapy (ATT: 7/738 vs. no ATT: 0/202; Fisher9s exact test: p = 0.22). Conclusion: The incidence of intrapleural hemorrhage following thoracocenthesis was low. Although the event rates in patients with or without ATT were not statistically different, all intrapleural hemorrhages occurred in patients with antithrombotic therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".