MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035928876 · doi:10.1186/s13054-020-03077-0

The unique characteristics of COVID-19 coagulopathy

2020· review· en· W3035928876 on OpenAlexaff
Toshiaki Iba, Jerrold H. Levy, Jean M. Connors, Theodore E. Warkentin, Jecko Thachil, Marcel Levi

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal and Optic Conditions
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
KeywordsMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Coagulopathy2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)PandemicIntensive care medicineVirologyMedical emergencyEmergency medicineInternal medicineOutbreakInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thrombotic complications and coagulopathy frequently occur in COVID-19. However, the characteristics of COVID-19-associated coagulopathy (CAC) are distinct from those seen with bacterial sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC) and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), with CAC usually showing increased D-dimer and fibrinogen levels but initially minimal abnormalities in prothrombin time and platelet count. Venous thromboembolism and arterial thrombosis are more frequent in CAC compared to SIC/DIC. Clinical and laboratory features of CAC overlap somewhat with a hemophagocytic syndrome, antiphospholipid syndrome, and thrombotic microangiopathy. We summarize the key characteristics of representative coagulopathies, discussing similarities and differences so as to define the unique character of CAC.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.344 · 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
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

Citations549
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicRetinal and Optic ConditionsFrench-language works237,207