MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078935291 · doi:10.1159/000217298

Comparison Of The Relative Efficacy And Safety Of Low Molecular Weight Heparin And Unfractionated Heparin For The Treatment Of Venous Thrombosis

2009· review· en· W2078935291 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHaemostasis · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsJuravinski HospitalHamilton General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeparinThrombosisThrombusLow molecular weight heparinVenous thrombosisSurgeryIncidence (geometry)Randomized controlled trialMajor bleedingAnticoagulantAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LMWH has been compared with unfractionated heparin in the treatment of venous thrombosis. The results of a pooled analysis studies of hospitalized patients showed a significant reduction of thrombus size, p < 0.001 and in the incidence of recurrent venous thromboembolism, p < 0.001 and of major bleeding p < 0.005 in patients treated with LMWH. The pooled mortality rate at long term follow-up was also found to be lower in LMWH group. Two large randomized trials have been completed in which LMWH was administered subcutaneously on an outpatient basis and compared with the standard approach of unfractionated heparin administered by continuous intravenous infusion in hospital. In both studies the efficacy, safety and mortality in the LMWH and heparin groups were similar.

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.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.814

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.320 · 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