Antithrombotic Therapy in a Prospective Trial of a Pediatric Ventricular Assist Device
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Efficacious ventricular assist device (VAD) support in pediatric patients depends on successful antithrombotic management. The experience with antithrombotic management for the EXCOR Pediatric VAD Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) study is described. All 68 children in North America enrolled in the IDE study from May 9, 2007 to December 10, 2010 are included. The Edmonton Anticoagulation and Platelet Inhibition Protocol was provided for management guidance. Monitoring parameters, drug dosing, targeted serious adverse events, and pump changes were reviewed. Major bleeding occurred in 43% of all subjects with most events occurring within 14 days of implantation. Bleeding events were probably/definitely related in 24% to antithrombotic management. Neurologic events occurred in 28% of subjects and were probably/definitely related in 9% to antithrombotic therapy intensity. Most neurologic events occurred between 4 and 30 days postimplantation and sporadically thereafter. Pump change occurred in 56% of subjects. Use of an antithrombotic protocol for enrolled subjects was possible in this multicenter study. Incidence of significant bleeding and thromboembolic events was acceptable when balanced against life-saving benefits of VADs. Further studies are needed to optimize the antithrombotic management of this patient 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".