MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131236362 · doi:10.3324/haematol.10616

A clinically significant incidence of bleeding in critically ill children receiving therapeutic doses of unfractionated heparin: a prospective cohort study

2007· article· en· W2131236362 on OpenAlexafffund
Stefan Kuhle, Pablo Eulmesekian, Brian P. Kavanagh, Patricia Massicotte, Patricia Vegh, Lesley Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueHaematologica · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
FundersHospital for Sick ChildrenAustrian Science Fund
KeywordsMedicineProspective cohort studyHeparinThrombosisIncidence (geometry)CohortCohort studyInternal medicineSurgeryMajor bleeding

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is frequently prescribed for children for the prevention and treatment of thrombosis; however, its safety and efficacy have not been assessed. The aim of this single center, prospective cohort study was to determine the incidence of major bleeding and recurrent thrombosis in children receiving UFH. Major bleeding was defined a priori as: central nervous system or retroperitoneal bleeding, bleeding resulting in UFH being stopped or overt bleeding causing a drop in hemoglobin >20 g/dL in less than 24 h. Major bleeding events occurred in 9/38 children (24%, 95% CI 11-40%) and 2/38 (5%, 95% CI 0-18%) developed thrombosis. In conclusion, there is clinically significant bleeding in children receiving UFH.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations72
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHaematologicaSame topicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis MechanismsFrench-language works237,207