Epidemiology, Diagnosis and Management of Neonatal Thrombosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Current research on neonatal thrombosis is limited. It relies heavily on individual case reports and much of the data is extrapolated from the adult scientific literature. The aim of this descriptive study is to review the epidemiology, diagnosis and management of neonatal thrombosis at a single tertiary care institution. Methods: This is a retrospective study of apatients admitted to McMaster Children's Hospital, neonatal intensive care unite from 2005 to 2018. Data on patient demographics, diagnostic imaging, thrombophilia testing, co-morbidities, treatment, outcomes were collected from health records. Results: A total of 242 neonatal patients were included. The distribution of 251 thrombotic episodes was: 144 portal vein, 15 cerebral sino-venous, 12 cardiac, 2 pulmonary embolisms, 5 renal vein, 40 extremity and central venous and 13 arterial. Additionally, 20 cases categorized as miscellaneous, consisted of clots in sites such as the basilic vein or umbilical artery, among other locations. Male and female percentages were 55% and 45%, respectively. Preterm to term infant ratio was 1.5:1. The average age at diagnosis was 13.2 days. 70% of thrombotic episodes were line-related, while infection and surgery were associated with 19% and 12% of episodes, respectively. 52% of the patients were blood group O. 30% of the patients received initial anticoagulation treatment, while the rest were managed conservatively. There was a trend towards higher rate of complete clot resolution in patients who received anticoagulation (48%) compared to those who did not (40%). Conclusion: This is one of the largest, single institution, epidemiologic studies of neonatal thrombosis. In our group of patients, portal vein thrombosis was most prevalent compared to other sites of thrombosis and catheterization was the commonest risk factor. There was a trend towards improved resolution with anticoagulation. Further prospective studies are required to confirm these findings. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".