Do Thrombophilias Cause Placenta-Mediated Pregnancy Complications?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been an sudden increase of knowledge about thrombophilias in the last decade as new thrombophilias are discovered and new associations are explored. It is now evident that thrombophilias are common and that the clinical consequences of having a thrombophilia do not appear to be limited to venous thromboembolism. The placenta-mediated pregnancy complications are also common (more than one in six pregnancies are affected) and include pregnancy loss, preeclampsia, placental abruption, and intrauterine growth restriction. These complications as a whole are the leading causes of maternal and neonatal morbidity in the developed world. Evidence has emerged to suggest that thrombophilic women may be at higher risk of developing these placenta-mediated pregnancy complications. However, is this evidence mature enough to claim that a causal association is proven? Is the evidence strong enough to recommend anticoagulant prophylaxis? We suggest that causality is not yet proven and that the data to support management with anticoagulant prophylaxis in thrombophilic pregnancies is too immature to consider this an established intervention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".