MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4231300066 · doi:10.3410/f.737924655.793582336

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Epidemiology of thrombosis in Canadian neonatal intensive care units.

2021· dataset· en· W4231300066 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anthony Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature · 2021
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThrombosisPediatricsIntensive careEpidemiologyConservative managementVenous thrombosisEmergency medicineSurgeryIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess the rate, location, risk factors, management, and outcomes of neonatal thrombosis (NT).DESIGN: A retrospective study investigating infants admitted to NICUs in Canadian Neonatal Network between January 2014 and December 2016 and diagnosed with NT. Each infant with NT was matched with an infant without NT.RESULTS: Of 39,971 infants, 587 (1.5%) were diagnosed with NT: 440 (75%) venous, 112 (19%) arterial, 29 (5%) both. NT rate was 1.4% in full-term and 1.7% in preterm infants. Venous thrombi occurred most commonly in the portal vein and arterial thrombi in the cerebral artery. Conservative management and low molecular weight heparin were the most common treatment modalities. Hospital stay was longer (p < 0.001) in the NT patients, but mortality was similar.CONCLUSIONS: NT was diagnosed in ~15/1000 NICU admissions and most commonly in the portal vein and cerebral arteries. Management varied based on the type and location of thrombi. Large multicenter trials are needed to address the best management strategies. PMID: 32385393 Funding information This work was supported by: CIHR, Canada Grant ID: APR-126340 CIHR, Canada Grant ID: CTP 87518

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)0.031
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: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.019
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.010

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.313 · 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
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature→Same topicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→