MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2984181238 · doi:10.1093/jtm/taz084

Flying while pregnant: what is the thrombosis risk?

2019· letter· en· W2984181238 on OpenAlexafffund
Bahy Vethanayagam, Susan R. Kahn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Travel Medicine · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineWarrantVenous thromboembolismPost partumPregnancyRisk assessmentThrombosisVenous thrombosisMaternal morbidityIntensive care medicineObstetricsRisk factorSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physicians are encouraged to risk stratify pregnant and post-partum travelers into low, intermediate and high risk for venous thromboembolism. In the average healthy pregnant or postpartum woman, the risk of travel-associated venous thromboembolism appears low (< 1%), warranting only routine, common sense preventive measures. However, higher risk women may warrant thromboprophylaxis.

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)0.015
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0160.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.252 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Travel MedicineSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207