MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2977403222 · doi:10.14740/jh522

Hemophilia C: A Case Report With Updates on Diagnosis and Management of a Rare Bleeding Disorder

2019· article· en· W2977403222 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thejus Jayakrishnan, Deep Shah, Prerna Mewawalla

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hematology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAllegheny Health Network
KeywordsMedicinePartial thromboplastin timeProthrombin timeFactor XIGastroenterologyClotting factorVon Willebrand factorFactor IXSurgeryClotting timeInternal medicinePediatricsCoagulationPlatelet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hemophilia C or factor XI deficiency is a rare clotting disorder with prevalence of only 1 per 1 million. A 24-year-old male with multiple abdominal surgeries complicated by wound infections and poor healing was admitted to plastic surgery service for an elective abdominoplasty. Hematology was consulted for increased intraoperative and postoperative bleeding. Laboratory workup showed high-normal activated plasma thromboplastin time of 31 s (reference: 23 - 34 s), prothrombin time (PT) of 15 s (reference: 11.8 - 14.3 s) and internationalized normal ratio (INR) of 1.2. Patient had normal factors VIII, IX, XIII levels and normal von Willebrand's factor level. The factor XI level came back at 0.28 (0.44 - 1.43 U/mL) diagnostic for intermediate factor XI deficiency. Factor XI is responsible for thrombin generation after clotting is initiated as well as clot stabilization. The confirmatory test is factor XI assay. The management of factor-XI deficiency is based on history of bleeding and nature of the procedure.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations19
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HematologySame topicHemophilia Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207