MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887534518 · doi:10.1177/2054358118792010

Association Between Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin and Risk of Bleeding Among Hemodialysis Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

2018· article· en· W2887534518 on OpenAlexaffabout
H. Lazrak, Émilie René, Naoual Elftouh, Jean‐Philippe Lafrance

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemodialysisHazard ratioInternal medicineRetrospective cohort studyPopulationLow molecular weight heparinCumulative incidenceProportional hazards modelCohortSurgeryConfidence intervalHeparin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) replaced unfractionated heparin (UFH) in multiple indications. Although LMWH efficacy in hemodialysis was demonstrated through multiple studies, their safety remains controversial. The potential bioaccumulation in patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis raised the question of bleeding risk among this population. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate bleeding risk among patients with chronic hemodialysis receiving LMWH or UFH for the extracorporeal circuit anticoagulation. DESIGN: (RAMQ) and Med-Echo databases from January 2007 to March 2013. SETTING: Twenty-one hemodialysis centers in the province of Québec, Canada. PATIENTS: Chronic hemodialysis patients. MEASUREMENTS: Bleeding risk evaluated by proportional Cox model for time-dependent exposure using demographics, comorbidities, and drug use as covariates. METHODS: ) codes in the RAMQ and Med-Echo databases. Exposure status to LMWH or UFH was collected through surveys at the facility level. RESULTS: We identified 5322 prevalent and incident patients with chronic hemodialysis. The incidence rate for minor, major, and total bleeding was 9.45 events/1000 patient-year (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.61-11.03), 24.18 events/1000 patient-year (95% CI: 21.52-27.08), and 32.88 events/1000 patient-year (95% CI: 29.75-36.26), respectively. We found similar risks of minor adjusted hazard ratio (HR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.68-1.61), major (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.63-1.10), and total bleeding (HR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.72-1.14) when comparing LMWH with UFH. LIMITATIONS: Potential misclassification of patients' exposure status and possible underestimation of minor bleeding risk. CONCLUSION: LMWH was not associated with a higher minor, major, or total bleeding risk. LMWH did not increase the risk of bleeding compared with UFH for the extracorporeal circuit anticoagulation in hemodialysis. The convenience of use and predictable effect made LMWH a suitable alternative to UFH in hemodialysis.

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)0.001
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 score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and DiseaseSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207