MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Oral contraceptives and thrombosis

2000· review· en· W2005027057 on OpenAlexaff
Cedric J. Carter

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineProgestogenPregnancyVenous thromboembolismThrombosisVenous thrombosisFamily planningDeveloped countryGynecologyPopulationSurgeryEnvironmental healthResearch methodologyInternal medicineHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oral contraceptives (OCs) are used by many millions of healthy young women. Their ease of use and efficacy against unwanted pregnancy has made them an indispensable part of modern society. Despite various changes in formulation, they are clearly associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Case-control and prospective studies have developed a range of relative risks of VTE, but the important issue is the impact of VTE relative to perceived benefits of the OC. This involves societal as well as medical judgment. The development of third-generation OCs has led to considerable concerns that these newer preparations may be associated with additional thrombotic risks over and above those of the traditional second-generation preparations. The paradoxical effect, that a change in progestogen in the combined OC could lead to increased VTE, could be explained by the induction of activated protein C resistance. In a society that is less prepared to accept unwanted side effects from medications, it is recommended that increased attention be given to patient selection, and possibly the incorporation into this process of some of the more recently discovered hypercoagulability markers.

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)0.002
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.006

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 head0.200
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations15
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Pulmonary MedicineSame topicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis MechanismsFrench-language works237,207