MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141540589 · doi:10.1016/j.clpt.2004.12.098

Clopidogrel use in children

2005· article· en· W2141540589 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yaron Finkelstein, Laila Nurmohamed, Lee Benson, Gideon Koren

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClopidogrelMedicineAspirinRegimenAntithromboticWarfarinTiclopidinePopulationInternal medicineAnesthesiaAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Children with congenital heart lesions have an increased incidence of thrombotic complications, particularly after interventional catheterization procedures. Clopidogrel is a specific platelet aggregation inhibitor. It selectively blocks the binding of membrane ADP to its platelet receptor. Dual therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel is the preferred antithrombotic regimen after coronary intervention with stent placement in adults. We describe the first experience with clopidogrel in children with complex heart disease after interventional cardiac catheterization and suggest a dose regimen for a pediatric population. Methods A retrospective study of all infants and children treated with clopidogrel bisulphate in the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto between Jan. 2001 and April 2004. Clopidogrel dosages, duration of therapy, complications and adverse effects were explored. Results 15 infants and children with congenital and acquired heart disease were treated with clopidogrel (median age 3.5 years; range 6 weeks- 16 years). Dosages ranged from 1 to 6 mg/kg/day, for periods between 1 to 6 months. While no thrombotic events were reported, one child had a bleeding complication (gastrointestinal) while on triple antithrombotic therapy (warfarin, aspirin and clopidogrel). Other complications reported in adults were not noted in this pediatric series. Conclusions Clopidogrel was well tolerated. A dose of 1mg/kg/day for children, may be started with monitored bleeding time. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (2005) 77, P54–P54; doi: 10.1016/j.clpt.2004.12.098

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.327 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Pharmacology & TherapeuticsSame topicCentral Venous Catheters and HemodialysisFrench-language works237,207