MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171610456 · doi:10.4021/jocmr2010.02.260w

Recurrent Pregnancy Loss and Thrombophilia

2010· article· en· W2171610456 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maristella D’Uva

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThrombophiliaMedicinePregnancyVenous thromboembolismThrombosisObstetricsGynecologyBioinformaticsInternal medicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Emerging data seem to be available also on the role of active thromboprophylaxis with heparin and pregnancy outcome. In the last decades we found many data concerning the association between a hypercoagulable state and its causes and adverse pregnancy outcome, in particular recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL). First studies which focused on the association between thrombophilia and RPL underlined the role of reduced clotting inhibitors and RPL, and subsequent studies underlined a pathogenetic role of gene variant associated to hypercoagulable state in the occurrence of RPL. On the other hand, acquired thrombophilic abnormalities as antiphipsholipid syndrome are a well known cause of RPL and should be considered for a screening. These data are relevant because recent studies suggested a role of an extensive thromprophilaxis in women with RPL that should be addressed only in case of known thrombophilia and high risk of venous thromboembolism. KEYWORDS: Thrombophilia; Recurrent pregnancy loss; Factor V Leiden; Hyperhomocysteinemia; Antiphospholipid antibodies; PAI 4G\4G.

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)0.002
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.309
GPT teacher head0.565
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations38
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine ResearchSame topicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis MechanismsFrench-language works237,207