MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2562513582 · doi:10.1111/bjh.14482

How do we approach thrombocytopenia in critically ill patients?

2016· review· en· W2562513582 on OpenAlexaff
Jecko Thachil, Theodore E. Warkentin

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Haematology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPlatelet Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Regional Laboratory Medicine ProgramHamilton Health SciencesHamilton General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlateletVon Willebrand factorEtiologyPlatelet transfusionHeparin-induced thrombocytopeniaIncidence (geometry)Internal medicineImmunologyIntensive care medicineGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

/l) can be associated with bleeding, even moderate-degree thrombocytopenia is associated with organ failure and adverse prognosis. The aetiology for thrombocytopenia in ITU is often multifactorial and correcting one aetiology may not normalise the low platelet count. The classical view for thrombocytopenia in this setting is consumption associated with thrombin-mediated platelet activation, but other concepts, including platelet adhesion to endothelial cells and leucocytes, platelet aggregation by increased von Willebrand factor release, red cell damage and histone release, and platelet destruction by the complement system, have recently been described. The management of severe thrombocytopenia is platelet transfusion in the presence of active bleeding or invasive procedure, but the risk-benefit of prophylactic platelet transfusions in this setting is uncertain. In this review, the incidence and mechanisms of thrombocytopenia in patients with ITU, its prognostic significance and the impact on organ function is discussed. A practical approach based on the authors' experience is described to guide management of a critically ill patient who develops thrombocytopenia.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations121
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of HaematologySame topicPlatelet Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207