MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2021547351 · doi:10.1139/h07-153

Central venous thrombosis in patients receiving long-term parenteral nutrition

2008· review· en· W2021547351 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Donald R. Duerksen

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaSt. Boniface Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParenteral nutritionMedicineWarfarinVenous thrombosisComplicationThrombosisCentral venous catheterIntensive care medicineVitaminSurgeryCatheterInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long-term parenteral nutrition (PN) is administered to patients who are unable to use their gastrointestinal tract to absorb sufficient nutrients and water to maintain their nutritional status. Patients receiving long-term parenteral nutrition are at risk of numerous complications including thrombosis of the central venous catheter used to provide nutrition. Central venous access is essential to the successful delivery of long-term PN. One of the strategies to lessen the frequency of this complication is anticoagulation therapy with warfarin. The effect of warfarin in preventing this complication may be modified by vitamin K intake. Individuals with gastrointestinal failure may receive vitamin K from a variety of sources. This review summarizes the role of warfarin in preventing central venous access thrombosis. It also summarizes potential sources of vitamin K intake in home parenteral nutrition patients, examines the evidence for recommendations regarding vitamin K intake, and considers the potential impact of increased vitamin K intake on home PN patients, particularly on the prevention of central venous thrombosis.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism→Same topicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis→French-language works237,207→