MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2350807375 · doi:10.1097/mcc.0b013e32830c484d

Thromboprophylaxis in medical–surgical critically ill patients

2008· review· en· W2350807375 on OpenAlexafffund
Mark Crowther

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Critical Care · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsGovernment of CanadaSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph's Hospital
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineCritically illIntensive care medicineHeparinIntensive care unitDeep veinVenous thromboembolismPopulationLow molecular weight heparinThrombosisRandomized controlled trialVenous thrombosisSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Although critically ill patients are at high risk of venous thromboembolism and bleeding, and thromboprophlyaxis is of proven effectivity in other settings, there remain relatively few data to assist clinicians in providing evidence-based care for medical-surgical patients in the intensive care unit. RECENT FINDINGS: Deep vein thrombosis occurs in 5-10% of critically ill patients even if they receive unfractionated heparin for prophylaxis. Both heparin and low molecular weight heparin can be safely administered to the majority of critically ill patients and the low molecular weight heparin dalteparin does not appear to bioaccumulate even when administered to patients with severe renal dysfunction. Further research is currently underway to better define how these conditions can be optimally treated. SUMMARY: Despite the high morbidity and mortality because of critical illness, the risk of venous thromboembolism in these patients, and adverse outcomes due to venous thromboembolism, much more methodologically rigorous data are required in the form of large, well designed randomized trials before firm recommendations about prophylaxis can be provided to this highly vulnerable population.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Critical CareSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207