MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061560323 · doi:10.1097/mbc.0b013e32832ca3d8

Renal venous thrombosis in a newborn with prothrombotic risk factors

2009· article· en· W2061560323 on OpenAlexaff
Samar Muwakkit, Raya Saab, Sami A. Sanjad, Saleh Bhar, Rim Ishak, Zeina A Samad, Anthony K.C. Chan, Miguel R. Abboud

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood Coagulation & Fibrinolysis · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThrombophiliaFactor V LeidenVenous thrombosisMethylenetetrahydrofolate reductaseInternal medicineThrombosisGastroenterologyProteinuriaCardiologyKidney

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Renal venous thrombosis (RVT) is a rare but a well recognized entity in children and neonates. The clinical signs of neonatal RVT include hypertension, enlarged kidney(s), hematuria, renal insufficiency, proteinuria, thrombocytopenia, or all. Persisting impairment of kidney function and hypertension are serious and common complications in patients with RVT. Risk factors for the development of RVT include maternal diabetes mellitus, pathologic states associated with thrombosis (e.g., shock, dehydration, perinatal asphyxia, polycythemia), and sepsis. Inherited prothrombotic abnormalities have been described in some reports of RVT. We report the case of a male newborn with left RVT and associated homozygosity for both factor V Leiden (G1691A) and methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase C677T mutations in addition to elevated serum lipoprotein (a). The patient was treated with heparin. We believe our case to be the first reported case in the English medical literature of such an association between neonatal RVT and homozygosity for both factor V Leiden and methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase. This case and other studies clearly demonstrate that neonatal RVT should be evaluated for thrombophilia conditions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.791

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations10
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood Coagulation & FibrinolysisSame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207