Mechanical circulatory support: balancing bleeding and clotting in high-risk patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) provides a bridge to heart transplant in children and adults with life-threatening heart failure and sustains patients ineligible for transplant. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) provides temporary support for patients in cardiac or pulmonary failure through external gas exchange and continuous flow of blood. Because the median time to heart transplant exceeds event-free time on ECMO, pulsatile left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are used to support infants and children. Continuous flow LVADs are preferred in adolescents and adults due to increased pump durability and improved overall survival. The shear stress created by the mechanical pumps cause changes in the hematologic system; acquired von Willebrand syndrome occurs in almost all patients treated with MCS. Despite the improvements in survival, major bleeding occurs in one-third of patients with a LVAD and ischemic stroke and LVAD thrombosis can affect 12% of adults and 29% of children. An antithrombotic strategy to mitigate LVAD bleeding and thrombotic complications has been tested in a randomized trial in children, but intensity of antithrombotic therapy in adults varies widely. Consensus guidelines for antithrombotic therapy during ECMO were created due to significant differences in management across centers. Because of the high risk for both bleeding and thrombotic complications, experts in hemostasis can significantly impact care of patients requiring mechanical circulatory support and are a necessary part of the management team.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".