MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bleeding complications in immune thrombocytopenia

2015· review· en· W2204521850 on OpenAlexaff
Donald M. Arnold

Bibliographic record

VenueHematology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPlatelet Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityCanadian Blood Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImmune thrombocytopeniaSevere bleedingPlateletMajor bleedingPlatelet transfusionIntracranial haemorrhagePediatricsSurgeryIntensive care medicineInternal medicineComplication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bleeding manifestations in patients with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) range from mild skin bruises to life-threatening intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Severe bleeding is distinctly uncommon when the platelet count is >30 × 10(9)/L and usually only occurs when the platelet count falls <10 × 10(9)/L. Based on estimates from clinical studies, ITP registries and administrative databases, the frequency of ICH in patients with ITP is ~0.5% in children and 1.5% in adults. Estimates of severe (non-ICH) bleeding are difficult to obtain because of the lack of standardized case definitions; the lack of a universally accepted, ITP-specific bleeding assessment tool; and the omission of reporting bleeding outcomes in many clinical studies. In practice, the presence of bleeding should dictate whether or not treatment is needed because many patients, especially children, can be safely managed with observation alone. Guiding principles for the management of ITP, based on the bleeding risk are: (1) Decide when treatment is needed and when it can safely be withheld; (2) for patients with chronic ITP, use the least toxic treatment at the lowest dose; (3) emergency treatment of severe thrombocytopenia-associated bleeding requires combination therapy; and (4) early aggressive therapy may result in durable platelet count responses.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations170
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHematologySame topicPlatelet Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207