Meta-analysis of risk factors for thrombocytopenia related to linezolid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the risk factors for thrombocytopenia related to linezolid (LZD) comprehensively. Methods The related databases were electronically searched for the case-control studies about risk factors for LZD-associated thrombocytopenia from the inception to June 2016. The quality of the literature which was enrolled into the Meta-analysis evaluated by Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS), and then Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software. The results are presented as odds risk (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results A total of 25 studies involving 4 279 patients were entered, including 1 335 in the thrombocytopenia group and 2 944 in the none thrombocytopenia group. The NOS scores of all literature were greater than or equal to 7. The result of Meta-analysis showed that, the baseline platelet count 14 days (OR=1.76, 95%CI: 1.17-2.65, P=0.006) and age≥65 years (OR=1.54, 95%CI: 1.03-2.31, P=0.04) were identified as significant risk factors for LZD-associated thrombocytopenia. Conclusion Current evidence shows that the severe damage to renal function, low baseline platelet count, low body weight, long-term LZD administration and advanced age are risk factors of LZD-related thrombocytopenia. Key words: Linezolid; Thrombocytopenia; Risk factor; Meta-analysis
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 | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".