Thrombosis in Inherited Fibrinogen Disorders
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".