MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967247150 · doi:10.1055/s-0029-1220326

Diagnostic Evaluation of Platelet Function Disorders in Neonates and Children: An Update

2009· review· en· W1967247150 on OpenAlexaff
Sara J. Israels

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPlatelet Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThromboelastographyMedicinePlatelet disorderPlateletBlood Platelet DisordersPlatelet activationPediatricsIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePlatelet aggregation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Investigation of platelet function disorders in infants and small children requires the collaborative efforts of clinicians and clinical laboratories. A detailed personal, family, and medication history, and a search for additional clinical phenomena may help to direct diagnostic laboratory investigations. Testing for these disorders in young children presents several challenges: the requirement of relatively large volumes of blood, lack of standardization, and the absence of well-established age-specific reference ranges. Neonates show the most notable differences in platelet function compared to older children and adults; the decreased platelet activation responses persist for the first 2 to 4 weeks after delivery. Small studies of normal postneonatal pediatric populations have provided data on platelet function assays, including bleeding times, PFA-100 closure times, thromboelastography, aggregation, secretion, and flow cytometry. The majority of these studies, comparing normal children with adults, found only minor differences in platelet responses measured by these assays.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations45
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeminars in Thrombosis and HemostasisSame topicPlatelet Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207