MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2743383361 · doi:10.1055/s-0037-1603938

Central Venous Catheter-Associated Deep Venous Thrombosis in Critically Ill Children

2017· review· en· W2743383361 on OpenAlexfundno aff
E. Vincent S. Faustino

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanarieAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsCritically illMedicineVenous thrombosisCentral venous catheterIntensive care medicineThrombosisCatheterSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The presence of a central venous catheter and admission to the intensive care unit are the most important risk factors for deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in children. At least 18% of critically ill children with a catheter develop radiologically confirmed catheter-associated thrombosis. Clinically apparent thrombosis occurs in 3% of critically ill children with a catheter and is associated with 8 additional days of mechanical ventilation. Even when the thrombus is initially asymptomatic, 8 to 18% of critically ill children with catheter-associated thrombosis develop postthrombotic syndrome. Thrombosis is uncommon within 24 hours after insertion of a nontunneled catheter in critically ill children, but nearly all thrombi have developed by 4 days after insertion. Hypercoagulability during or immediately after insertion of the catheter plays an essential role in the development of thrombosis. Pharmacologic prophylaxis, including local anticoagulation with heparin-bonded catheter, has not been shown to reduce the risk of catheter-related thrombosis in children. Systemic anticoagulation in critically ill children started soon after the insertion of the catheter, however, may be beneficial. A multicenter clinical trial that is testing this hypothesis is currently underway.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations20
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeminars in Thrombosis and HemostasisSame topicCentral Venous Catheters and HemodialysisFrench-language works237,207