MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019246989 · doi:10.1155/2011/313854

Thromboelastography to Monitor Clotting/Bleeding Complications in Patients Treated with the Molecular Adsorbent Recirculating System

2011· article· en· W2019246989 on OpenAlexaff
Esther Bächli, Jörg Bösiger, Markus Béchir, John F. Stover, Reto Stocker, Marco Maggiorini, Eberhard L. Renner, Beat Müllhaupt, Reto A. Schuepbach

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Research and Practice · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThromboelastographyMedicineFibrinogenClotting factorThromboelastometryHemostasisCoagulationMars Exploration ProgramCoagulopathyRetrospective cohort studyFibrinolysisGastroenterologyInternal medicineSurgeryAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. The Molecular Adsorbent Recirculating System (MARS) has been shown to clear albumin-bound toxins from patients with liver failure but might cause bleeding complications potentially obscuring survival benefits. We hypothesized that monitoring clotting parameters and bed-side thromboelastography allows to reduce bleeding complications. Methods. Retrospective analysis of 25 MARS sessions during which clotting parameters were monitored by a standardized protocol. Results. During MARS therapy median INR increased significantly from 1.7 to 1.9 platelet count and fibrinogen content decreased significantly from 57 fL(-1) to 42 fL(-1) and 2.1 g/L to 1.5 g/L. Nine relevant complications occurred: the MARS system clotted 6 times 3 times we observed hemorrhages. Absent thrombocytopenia and elevated plasma fibrinogen predicted clotting of the MARS system (ROC 0.94 and 0.82). Fibrinolysis, detected by thromboelastography, uniquely predicted bleeding events. Conclusion. Bed-side thromboelastography and close monitoring of coagulation parameters can predict and, therefore, help prevent bleeding complications during MARS therapy.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care Research and PracticeSame topicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207