Thrombosis in Inherited Fibrinogen Disorders
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although inherited fibrinogen disorders (IFD) are primarily considered to be bleeding disorders, they are associated with a higher thrombotic complication risk than defects in other clotting factors. Managing IFD patients with thrombosis is challenging as anticoagulant treatment may exacerbate the underlying bleeding risk which can be life-threatening. Due to the low prevalence of IFD, there is little information on pathophysiology or optimal treatment of thrombosis in these patients. We searched the literature for cases of thrombosis among IFD patients and identified a total of 128 patient reports. In approximately half of the cases, thromboses were spontaneous, while in the others trauma, surgery, and parturition contributed to the risk. The true mechanism(s) of thrombosis in IFD patients remain to be elucidated. A variety of anticoagulant treatments have been used in the treatment or prevention of thrombosis, sometimes with concurrent fibrinogen replacement therapy. There is no definite evidence that fibrinogen supplementation increases the risk of thrombosis, and it may potentially be effective in the treatment and prevention of both thrombosis and hemorrhage in IFD patients.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it