Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accumulating evidence indicates that certain low-molecular-weight (LMW) heparins administered subcutaneously may replace classic intravenous heparin therapy. LMW heparins do not require monitoring and may be safer and more effective than unfractionated heparin. The decreased mortality rate, evident in two randomized trials, which was particularly striking in patients with metastatic carcinoma, requires confirmation. The simplified care offered by LMW heparin therapy raises the possibility of transferring care from in-hospital to out of hospital in uncomplicated patients with deep-vein thrombosis [Salzman EW: Low-molecular weight heparin and other new antithrombotic drugs. N Engl J Med 1992;326: 1017-1019]. The advantages to the patient of avoiding in-hospital care and its associated hazards are obvious. Outpatient LMW heparin therapy will likely prove to be highly cost-effective. It is uncertain at present whether the findings associated with an individual LMW heparin preparation can be extrapolated to a different LMW heparin. For this reason the findings of clinical trials apply only to the particular LMW heparin evaluated and cannot be generalized to the LMW heparins at large.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".