MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2553456942 · doi:10.1182/blood.v106.11.548.548

Prophylactic Low Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH) during Pregnancy Is Not Associated with a Decrease in Bone Mineral Density (BMD). The TIPPS (Thrombophilia in Pregnancy Prophylaxis Study) BMD Substudy.

2005· article· en· W2553456942 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Rodger, Alejandro Lazo‐Langner, Susan R. Kahn, Michael J. Kovacs, Sue Robinson, Mark Blostein, Graeme N. Smith, John‏ Kingdom, Christine Demers, Susan Solymoss, Rshmi Khurana, É. Rey, Anne Marie Clement, Philip S. Wells

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversité LavalUniversity of TorontoOttawa Public HealthDalhousie UniversityWestern UniversityCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineQueen's UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThrombophiliaRandomized controlled trialBone mineralPregnancyLow molecular weight heparinObstetricsBone densitySurgeryGynecologyThrombosisInternal medicineOsteoporosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Decreased BMD is a relatively common serious complication of long-term heparin use, however there have not been adequately powered randomized controlled trials addressing its risk in association with long-term use of LMWH. The TIPPS study is an ongoing multi-center randomized trial designed to compare the effect of LMWH prophylaxis vs. no prophylaxis on pregnancy outcomes in thrombophilic pregnant women. A separate sub-study was planned a priori to assess the effect of LMWH on BMD. Methods: Pregnant women (<20 weeks) were included if they had history of: pregnancy complications or were at moderate risk of venous thrombosis, and had a confirmed thrombophilia. They were excluded if they had history of underlying bone or thyroid disease, long-term use of corticosteroids, metabolic bone agents or anticonvulsants, or >100 kg wt. Patients (pts) were randomized to either LMWH (dalteparin [dalt] 5,000 U qd until 20 wks and then 10,000 qd until term) or control (ctrl) group. All participants received post-partum dalt 5,000 U qd from postpartum d1 to d42. BMD (hip and lumbar spine) was performed 6 wk post-partum. A sample size of 26 pts per group was calculated to detect a 10% difference in absolute BMD (α=0.05, β=0.10). Primary outcome was absolute spine BMD compared using an unpaired t-test. Results were analyzed as-treated; 31 pts received dalt and 22 did not (4 pts randomized to ctrl group crossed over). BMD and T-score results in treatement groups Dalteparin1 No dalteparin1 p Value 1Mean (SD) BMD (spine) 1.12 (0.26) 1.21 (0.14) 0.115 T-score (spine) −0.32 (1.25) 0.13 (1.15) 0.196 BMD (hip) 0.97 (0.21) 1.02 (0.12) 0.319 T-score (hip) 0.17 (0.96) 0.36 (1.01) 0.479 Duration of dalt treatment was 214.5±41.9d for dalt group and 47±38.6d for ctrl (p<0.001). Two cases of osteoporosis (Opo) and 7 cases of osteopenia (Ope) were documented in the dalt group vs 0 of Opo and 3 of Ope in the ctrl group respectively. Results of post-hoc logistic regression analysis examining the odds of obtaining an abnormal (Opo or Ope) spine or hip BMD result in both treatment groups were non significant (Crude OR 2.59; 95%CI 0.61, 10.97; p=0.20; Adjusted OR 6.83; 95%CI 0.17, 272.33; p=0.307) as well as results of post-hoc multiple linear regression to predict changes in BMD and T-scores. Multiple linear regression analysis predicting BMD and T-score in patients receiving dalteparin Unadjusted Adjusted Beta (SE) p Beta (SE) p BMD (spine) −0.099(0.06) 0.12 −0.226(0.16) 0.16 BMD (hip) −0.051(0.05) 0.32 −0.190(0.13) 0.15 T-score (spine) −0.444(0.34) 0.66 −0.641(0.87) 0.47 T-score (hip) −0.195(0.27) 0.48 −0.661(0.68) 0.34 Conclusion: Our results suggest that the use of long term prophylactic dalteparin in pregnancy is not associated with a significant decrease in BMD.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→