Outcome of pregnancy in women with hereditary thrombophilia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study are to review the outcome of pregnancy in women with thrombophilia, and investigate the possible beneficial effect of heparin therapy in these women. METHODS: We reviewed the hospital records of 126 women who were referred to the high-risk obstetrical hematology clinic between June 1996 and December 1999. The placental histology and outcome of 39 pregnancies in 24 women with hereditary thrombophilia were studied, and pregnancies which were treated with heparin were compared with those without treatment. RESULTS: An adverse pregnancy outcome occurred in 54% of the pregnancies. All seven miscarriages (18%) occurred in pregnancies that were not treated with heparin. However, heparin treatment did not prevent the development of obstetric complications in later pregnancies (odds ratio=0.955, 95% C.I.=0.255-3.577, Fisher's exact test). Excluding miscarriages, 28% of the placentas had thrombotic lesions, and the pregnancies with placental thrombotic lesions were more likely to have complications than those pregnancies without placental abnormalities (P=0.023, C.I.=1.257-5.197, Fisher's exact test). CONCLUSIONS: Pregnancy complications in cases of hereditary thrombophilia may be related to placental abnormalities. Heparin therapy is likely to be useful in preventing miscarriage in cases of hereditary thrombophilia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".