MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884159198 · doi:10.1097/mbc.0000000000000759

Thromboelastographic analysis of haemostasis in preeclamptic and normotensive pregnant women

2018· article· en· W2884159198 on OpenAlexaff
Erin Murray, Malia S. Q. Murphy, Graeme N. Smith, Charles H. Graham, Maha Othman

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood Coagulation & Fibrinolysis · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSt. Lawrence CollegeKingston General HospitalQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThromboelastographyPreeclampsiaPregnancyObstetricsHemostasisCoagulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

: Pregnancy is a state of heightened coagulation, exacerbated in pathological conditions such as preeclampsia. We evaluated the role of thromboelastography (TEG), compared with standard haemostasis tests, in identifying in haemostatic alterations in normotensive pregnancies and pregnancies complicated with preeclampsia. Standard haemostasis tests and TEG were performed on 28 normotensive women and 31 with preeclampsia at delivery, 6 weeks and 6 months postpartum. Results were compared between patient groups, and at different collection times. Standard haemostasis tests failed to reveal consistent differences in haemostatic function between subject groups, mirroring the inconsistency described in the literature. TEG revealed increased coagulability in preeclampsia subjects compared with normotensive subjects at delivery. Haemostatic alterations were normalized by 6 weeks postpartum and remained stable at 6 months postpartum. TEG is superior to standard laboratory haemostatic tests in evaluating antenatal and postpartum haemostatic alterations associated with pregnancy complications such as preeclampsia.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood Coagulation & FibrinolysisSame topicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis MechanismsFrench-language works237,207