MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4254411413 · doi:10.3410/f.735081597.793582338

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Risk Factors Linked to Central Catheter-Associated Thrombosis in Critically Ill Infants in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.

2021· dataset· en· W4254411413 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature · 2021
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLogistic regressionRetrospective cohort studyCatheterOdds ratioThrombosisHazard ratioProportional hazards modelIncidence (geometry)PopulationCohortNeonatal intensive care unitCohort studyPediatricsSurgeryInternal medicineConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Our study identified risk factors for the development of clinically identifiable catheter-associated thrombosis (CT).STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study of neonates in whom a central catheter was present. A total of 1,475 catheters were identified in 766 patients during a 36-month study period. The odds ratio (OR) of thrombi formation in catheterized neonates was modeled using simple (single predictor) and multiple (multiple predictors) logistic regressions as well as simple and multiple Cox's proportional hazard models.RESULT: The incidence of CT was 1.17 per 100 neonates. Unadjusted factors including age at insertion, history of surgery before or during line placement, cholestasis, femoral location, and line size significantly increased the OR or hazards ratio (HR) of developing thrombi formation. In multiple logistic and Cox's regression analyses, three factors continued to be significantly associated with OR or HR of thrombi formation: line size, femoral location, and cholestasis.CONCLUSION: We conclude that clinically identifiable CT is rare in the neonatal population. Furthermore, catheter-specific characteristics are predictive for CT and require further investigation.Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. PMID: 30081400

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)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0660.021

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 designObservational
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature→Same topicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis→French-language works237,207→