MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210658031 · doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2022.01.028

Coagulation and Anticoagulation in Fontan Patients

2022· review· en· W4210658031 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Josephine F. Heidendael, Leo J. Engele, Berto J. Bouma, Anne I. Dipchand, Sara Thorne, Brian W. McCrindle, Barbara J.M. Mulder

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Cardiology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAntithromboticFontan procedureThromboembolic strokeIntensive care medicineChronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertensionCardiologyInternal medicinePulmonary embolismVentricleAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients with a Fontan circulation for single-ventricle physiology are at increased risk of developing thromboembolic events. Thromboembolic events can lead to failure of the Fontan circulation, chronic sequelae in case of stroke, and early mortality. Controversies exist regarding the substrates, risk factors, and optimal detection methods for thromboembolic events. Despite the major clinical implications, there is currently no consensus regarding the optimal antithrombotic therapy to prevent or treat thromboembolic events after the Fontan procedure. In this review we aimed to untangle the available literature regarding antithrombotic prophylaxis and treatment for pediatric and adult Fontan patients. A decision-tree algorithm for thromboprophylaxis in Fontan patients is proposed. Additionally, the current state of knowledge is reviewed with respect to the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and detection of thromboembolic events in Fontan patients, and important evidence gaps are highlighted.

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)0.004
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations25
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CardiologySame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207