MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Preventing maternal deaths due to acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura

2012· article· en· W1542673637 on OpenAlexaff
Beverley J. Hunt, Rowena R. Thomas‐Dewing, Kate Bramham, Sebastian Lucas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicComplement system in diseases
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineThrombotic thrombocytopenic purpuraPlasmapheresisPregnancyThrombosisPurpura (gastropod)PediatricsCause of deathSchistocyteDifferential diagnosisInternal medicineSurgeryPlateletCardiologyImmunologyPathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to identify the cause of maternal deaths due to thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) and identify future preventative measures we retrospectively reviewed all maternal deaths due to TTP in London from 2003 to 2008 that were confirmed on post-mortem examination. There were three maternal deaths due to sudden cardiac arrest within 1, 5 and 2 days of presentation, respectively. Post-mortem findings revealed they all died with intramyocardial microvascular thrombosis, the thrombi being characteristically platelet rich (CD61+, fibrin-). Platelet thrombi in the coronary microvasculature are the cause of early sudden death in TTP in pregnancy. If TTP cannot be excluded in the differential diagnosis of thrombotic microangiopathies of pregnancy, then plasmapheresis should be instituted as a medical emergency. ADAMTS-13 levels are helpful in making the diagnosis, but results should not be awaited before instituting plasmapheresis.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of obstetrics and gynaecology researchSame topicComplement system in diseasesFrench-language works237,207