Management of Heparin‐Induced Thrombocytopenia During Renal Replacement Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Awareness is increasing concerning the development of antibodies to heparin-platelet factor 4 complex in both regular hemodialysis patients and those treated with continuous forms of renal replacement therapy. Although the development of antibodies does not result in thrombocytopenia or thrombosis in some patients, most patients present with thrombocytopenia, premature platelet activation, and clotting of the extracorporeal circuit. When systemic anticoagulation is also required to treat venous thrombosis, then synthetic heparinoids or recombinant hirudin will be the agents of choice. However, neither the synthetic heparinoids nor hirudin are without problems. A few patients may have cross-reacting antibodies against the currently available heparinoids. Similarly, antibodies may develop against recombinant hirudin, leading to a potentiation of anticoagulant activity and increased risk of hemorrhage. In the future, thrombin inhibitors such as recombinant hirudin and the arginine derivative argatroban will probably be the agents most widely used to prevent thromboembolic complications. However, anti-platelet agents used alone or in combination with hirudin or synthetic heparinoids may provide adequate treatment by inhibiting both platelet and clotting cascade activation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".