MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1772462238 · doi:10.9771/cmbio.v12i1.6836

Tempo de Protrombina como Marcador Precoce de Mortalidade em Pacientes Admitidos à Unidade de Terapia Intensiva

2013· article· pt· W1772462238 on OpenAlexaff
Nayana Camurça de Araújo, Benilton Batista de Souza, Arnaldo Aires Peixoto

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista de Ciências Médicas e Biológicas · 2013
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMaternal and Neonatal Healthcare
Canadian institutionsCytodiagnostics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLife spanSpan (engineering)FontHumanitiesMedicineArtGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introdução: O tempo de protrombina é um marcador da via extrínseca da coagulação, podendo refletir alterações na microcirculação. O objetivo deste estudo foi estabelecer uma associação entre o tempo de protrombina à admissão dos pacientes internados em unidade de terapia intensiva (UTI) e seu prognóstico. Metodologia: Estudo retrospectivo com análise de 278 pacientes admitidos consecutivamente na UTI, durante o período de 01 de janeiro de 2010 a 31 de janeiro de 2011. Resultados: Houve discreto predomínio do sexo feminino, com idade média de 56,9 ± 20,5 anos. O tempo médio de permanência foi 7,9 ± 7,3 dias e o APACHE II médio foi de 21,9 ± 9,0 pontos. Os pacientes com mortalidade precoce (primei¬ras 48h de UTI) tiveram maior valor do tempo de protrombina, expresso por meio do INR (2,48 ± 1,9) que os sobreviventes (1,4 ± 0,5); p < 0,05. Conclusões: O tempo de protrombina se revelou significati¬vamente maior entre os pacientes que faleceram preco¬cemente, sugerindo ser um marcador prognóstico.

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)0.006
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

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

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

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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista de Ciências Médicas e BiológicasSame topicMaternal and Neonatal HealthcareFrench-language works237,207