MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131308864 · doi:10.1177/1076029613480557

Evaluation of the Use of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin in Neonates

2013· article· en· W2131308864 on OpenAlexaff
Ankush Chander, Kim Nagel, John Wiernikowski, Bosco Paes, Anthony K.C. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLow molecular weight heparinHeparinTherapeutic indexTherapeutic effectAnesthesiaPharmacologyInternal medicineDrug

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Controversies exist over the currently recommended guidelines for the use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in neonates. We retrospectively studied 30 neonates treated with LMWH and found a poor therapeutic response to recommended doses as measured by anti-Xa levels. Sixty percent of the study participants required their doses to be increased because of subtherapeutic anti-Xa levels during the initial course of their treatment. The mean starting enoxaparin dose was 1.53 ± 0.38 mg/kg. The mean enoxaparin dose, once therapeutic anti-Xa levels had been achieved, was 1.86 ± 0.50 mg/kg. Preterm and term infants required doses of 2.06 ± 0.61 mg/kg and 1.67 ± 0.26 mg/kg, respectively, to achieve therapeutic anti-Xa levels. In summary, our results suggest that higher initial doses are required to achieve therapeutic anticoagulation in neonates.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations33
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisSame topicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis MechanismsFrench-language works237,207