MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167354307 · doi:10.3949/ccjm.75a.072272

Anticoagulants and pregnancy: When are they safe?

2009· review· en· W2167354307 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Gibson, Raymond Powrie

Bibliographic record

VenueCleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyHeparinIntensive care medicineAdverse effectAnticoagulantLow molecular weight heparinObstetricsSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prescribing anticoagulants to pregnant women can be difficult and stressful. Fortunately, low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) and unfractionated heparin are quite safe and efficacious when properly selected, dosed, and monitored. Maternal and fetal concerns must be considered at all times, with a careful assessment of the risks and benefits of anticoagulant therapy in each patient. Further research should help to clarify who should receive thromboprophylaxis, how to prevent adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with various thrombophilias, and how best to treat pregnant women who have a prosthetic heart valve.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations45
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCleveland Clinic Journal of MedicineSame topicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis MechanismsFrench-language works237,207