MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098284940 · doi:10.7196/samjnew.7928

Recommendations for the anticoagulation of pregnant patients with mechanical heart valves

2015· article· en· W2098284940 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

VenueSouth African Medical Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Issues in Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMechanical heartMechanical heart-valveIntensive care medicineAdverse effectClinical PracticeThrombosisMechanical valveHeart valveAnticoagulant therapyAnticoagulantSurgeryPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The management of pregnant patients with mechanical heart valves remains challenging because there are no large randomised studies to provide guidelines for effective anticoagulant therapy. Both vitamin K antagonists and heparins may be associated with maternal and foetal adverse events. METHOD: The Southern African Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis reviewed available literature and comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for the anticoagulation of pregnant patients with mechanical heart valves. A draft document was produced and revised by consensus agreement. The guidelines were adjudicated by independent international experts to avoid local bias. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: We present concise, practical guidelines for the clinical management of pregnant patients with mechanical heart valves. Recommendations reflect current best practice which will hopefully lead to improved anticoagulation practice in this select group of high risk patients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.263 · 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