MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1775176018

Effect of oral administration of unfractionated heparin (UFH) on coagulation parameters in plasma and levels of urine and fecal heparin in dogs.

2014· article· en· W1775176018 on OpenAlexaff
Malathi Erickson, Linda M. Hiebert, Anthony P. Carr, Jocelyn D Stickney

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeparinPartial thromboplastin timeUrineAntithrombinOral administrationAnticoagulantCoagulationPharmacologyChemistryFecesMedicineInternal medicineBiologyMicrobiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of heparin administration, by the oral route, were evaluated in dogs. In single and multiple dose studies (single 7.5 mg/kg, multiple 3 × 7.5 mg/kg per 48 h), plasma, urine, and fecal samples were collected at various times up to 120 h after oral administration of unfractionated heparin. Changes in plasma and urine anti-Xa activity, plasma and urine anti-IIa activity, plasma activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) and antithrombin (ATIII), and chemical heparin in urine and feces were examined with time. There was support for heparin absorption, with significant differences in APTT, heparin in plasma as determined by anti-Xa activity (Heptest) in the single dose study and plasma anti-Xa activity, anti-IIa activity and ATIII; and chemical heparin in urine in the multiple dose study. No clinical evidence of bleeding was detected in any dog during the studies. Oral heparin therapy may be applicable for thromboembolic disease in animals. Further studies are warranted to determine the effects of oral heparin at the endothelial level in the dog.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207