MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Low‐molecular‐weight heparin or warfarin for anticoagulation in pregnant women with mechanical heart valves: what are the risks? A retrospective observational study

2012· article· en· W1850537665 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Issues in Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersUniversity of Bristol
KeywordsWarfarinMedicineLow molecular weight heparinHeparinThrombosisRetrospective cohort studyObservational studyPregnancyObstetricsAdverse effectMechanical heartSurgeryInternal medicineAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Please cite this paper as: Basude S, Hein C, Curtis S, Clark A, Trinder J. Low‐molecular‐weight heparin or warfarin for anticoagulation in pregnant women with mechanical heart valves: what are the risks? A retrospective observational study. BJOG 2012;119:1008–1013. The management of anticoagulation in pregnant women with mechanical heart valves is complex. The maternal and fetal outcomes of 32 pregnancies in 15 women on three different anticoagulation regimens were compared. Anticoagulation with low‐molecular‐weight heparin ( n = 4), warfarin ( n = 22) and combination therapy ( n = 6) resulted in adverse maternal events in four (100%), three (50%) and three (14%) women, and resulted in fetal losses in one (25%), 17(77%) and three (50%) pregnancies, respectively. Whereas the rate of fetal loss in the warfarin group was high, all women in the LMWH and half of those in the combination group had serious adverse maternal events, including valve thrombosis, maternal death and postpartum haemorrhage.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.287 · 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