MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998258741 · doi:10.1002/pbc.28114

Inferior vena cava syndrome in neonates: An evidence‐based systematic review of the literature

2019· review· en· W2998258741 on OpenAlexaff
Thuan Minh Tieu, Bosco Paes, Afrah Ahmed, Davide Matino, Anthony K.C. Chan, Mihir D. Bhatt

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsThrombosis and Atherosclerosis Research InstituteMcMaster Children's HospitalUniversity of GuelphMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThrombolysisInferior vena cavaVenous thrombosisIntensive care medicineThrombosisRadiologySuperior vena cava syndromeCentral venous catheterSurgeryCatheterInternal medicineSuperior vena cava

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neonatal inferior vena cava syndrome (IVCS), though uncommon, is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Information on risk factors, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes is limited. This review comprised 61 neonates across 33 reports. Thrombosis occurred in 98% and 42% involved a central venous catheter. Diagnosis was mainly established by ultrasound in 82%. Therapeutically, heparin was employed in 36% and thrombolysis in 18% of the cases. The overall mortality was 23%. An algorithm of clinical signs, investigation, and management is presented. Well-designed prospective studies are needed to establish a concrete investigational approach to neonatal IVCS and institute safe, evidence-based treatment.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric Blood & CancerSame topicCentral Venous Catheters and HemodialysisFrench-language works237,207