An Assessment of Published Pediatric Dosage Guidelines for Enoxaparin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of published dosage guidelines for enoxaparin to achieve therapeutic anticoagulation and to determine whether the routine monitoring of anti-Xa levels is still necessary at a tertiary care pediatric institution. METHODS: Consecutive charts and laboratory records were reviewed for all patients receiving treatment doses of enoxaparin for thrombosis in the authors institution over a 4-year period (1998-2002). RESULTS: Sixty-six percent (25/38) of the anti-Xa levels were within the recommended therapeutic range (0.5-1.0 [+/- 10%] U/mL) after two doses. The success rates of achieving therapeutic levels were 1/6, 2/3, 6/9, 10/11, and 6/9, for patients 2 months or younger, more than 2 months to 1 year, more than 1 year to 6 years, more than 6 years to 12 years, and more than 12 years of age, respectively. Patients with cardiac or renal disease were more likely to achieve high anti-Xa levels. Thirty-seven percent of patients reported adverse effects. The most common effects were injection site-related bruising and minor bleeding. One patient experienced a major bleed that was not life-threatening. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients achieved therapeutic anticoagulation when dosed according to the published guidelines. Children with cardiac conditions or renal insufficiency or those younger than 2 months were more likely to require dosage adjustments to achieve the therapeutic range. Routine monitoring of anti-Xa levels is still necessary in these patient populations, particularly when the early establishment of therapeutic anticoagulation may be critical. Enoxaparin appears to be well tolerated in the authors' patient population.
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 | 0.035 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".