Heparin therapy for complications of placental dysfunction: A systematic review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the benefits and harms of antenatal antithrombotic therapy for women at risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with placental dysfunction. SEARCH STRATEGY: PUBMED and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL) were searched. Reference lists of retrieved studies were searched by hand. No date or language restrictions were placed. Date of last search February 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing antenatal antithrombotic therapy (alone or combined with other agents) with placebo or no treatment were considered. Cohort studies with an appropriate control group were also considered. Studies were evaluated independently for appropriateness for inclusion and methodological quality without consideration of their results. Our search strategy identified five case series, two cohort studies with a control group, and one randomized controlled trial. All of the case series and one of the cohort studies were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The methodological quality of the included studies was poor. There was considerable variation in methodology and the interventions. It was not appropriate to combine results in meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: From the randomized trial, heparin was not associated with a reduction in preterm birth less than 37 weeks gestation (Heparin 5/68 versus Control 7/39; relative risk (RR) 0.41; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) 0.14-1.20), or birth weight below 10th centile (Heparin 4/68 versus Control 6/39; RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.11-1.27). CONCLUSION: There is insufficient information to recommend the use of heparin during pregnancy for women at risk of complications due to placental dysfunction. Further information from randomized trials is required.
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 | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".