Retrospective Study of High Hemoglobin Levels in 56 Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Erythrocytosis is a frequent request for consultation in the hematologic field. The diagnostic approach is well established in the general population but in a young adult, finding the etiology of erythrocytosis can be a real diagnostic challenge. METHODS: This is an observational retrospective unicentric study made at the Sherbrooke University Hospital Center, over a period of 20 years (1995 - 2015). Every patient aged between 16 and 35 years old with a significant elevation of hemoglobin or hematocrit was included (hemoglobin > 185 g/L and/or hematocrit > 0.52 in men; hemoglobin > 165 g/L and/or hematocrit > 0.48 in women). RESULTS: mutation and serum EPO dosage were performed in 17.9% and 23.2% of cases respectively. Seven patients were treated with aspirin and five patients had phlebotomies. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study reveals an actual clinical management that is often discordant with the current recommendations and a frequent lack of follow-up after initial investigations. Harmonization of management of erythrocytosis appears to be highly desirable.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 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".