MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2266192611 · doi:10.1136/bcr-2015-211699

Retroperitoneal haematoma associated with enoxaparin use in an elderly woman with chronic kidney disease

2015· review· en· W2266192611 on OpenAlexaff
Jean Triscott, Susan Mercer, Peter George Jaminal Tian, Bonnie Dobbs

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Case Reports · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCase Reports on Hematomas
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineKidney diseaseAspirinConcomitantPacked red blood cellsVomitingSurgeryPulmonary embolismAnesthesiaBlood transfusionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An 81-year-old woman with chronic kidney disease was on enoxaparin (1 mg/kg subcutaneously two times a day) for 4 months to manage pulmonary embolism. While admitted for diagnostic evaluation of frequent falls, transient ischaemic attacks and pain management, she developed vomiting, diarrhoea, melena and hypotension. Her estimated glomerular filtration rate decreased from an admission value of 34 mL/min/1.73 m2 to 13 mL/min/1.73 m2. CT scan showed retroperitoneal haematoma. She was placed in intensive care and stabilised with aggressive fluid replacement, blood transfusion, and discontinuation of enoxaparin and concomitant aspirin. We attribute this major bleeding to enoxaparin use in an elderly woman with chronic kidney disease and concomitant aspirin intake. We will review reported cases of enoxaparin-associated retroperitoneal haematoma. We suggest that enoxaparin be used with caution in elderly patients with chronic kidney disease, and stress that treatment monitoring and reversal may not be readily available.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.365
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 designCase report
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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Case ReportsSame topicCase Reports on HematomasFrench-language works237,207