MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912732623 · doi:10.21037/acs.2018.07.03

Traditional and non-traditional anticoagulation management during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

2019· editorial· en· W2912732623 on OpenAlexaff
Andreas Koster, Edis Ljajikj, David Faraoni

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Cardiothoracic Surgery · 2019
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeparinExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationPartial thromboplastin timeActivated clotting timeCoagulationIntensive care medicineCoagulation testingAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is the anticoagulant of choice during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support. Despite its favorable pharmacologic properties, management of heparin anticoagulation during ECMO remains a major challenge. To date, little is known about the optimal monitoring strategy or the heparin dose offering the best safety/efficacy profile. Therefore, it remains unclear if the heparin dose should be adapted to target a specific "clotting time" [e.g., activated clotting time (ACT) or activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT)] or a heparin concentration, measured by coagulation factor anti-Xa assay. In addition, no study has compared the relevance of modern viscoelastic coagulation tests over the single value of a clotting time or heparin concentration value. Although guidelines for anticoagulation during ECMO support have been published, the absence of evidence limits the quality of the recommendations provided, which explains the major intra- and inter-institutional variability observed. Large prospective multicenter trials are urgently needed to investigate the optimal anticoagulation management strategy during ECMO support.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0080.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.216 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations67
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Cardiothoracic SurgerySame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207