MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400696963 · doi:10.1111/1744-9987.14185

Examination of drug removal profiles in patients undergoing therapeutic plasma exchange: A retrospective study

2024· article· en· W4400696963 on OpenAlexaff
Uğur Balaban, Emre Kara, Sherif Hanafy Mahmoud, Osman Özcebe, Kutay Demirkan

Bibliographic record

VenueTherapeutic Apheresis and Dialysis · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDrugRetrospective cohort studyMedical prescriptionTherapeutic plasma exchangeSingle CenterInternal medicineTherapeutic effectIntensive care medicineSurgeryPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) eliminates disease-contributing substances but may also affect drug concentrations. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of prescription drugs removable via TPE by reviewing patient medication histories. METHODS: A retrospective, single-center study was conducted from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022. The study included 244 patients undergoing 1087 TPE sessions. Drugs prescribed to patients on TPE days were categorized as "yes" (probably removable), "maybe" (possibly removable), and "no" (unlikely removable) regarding their removability via TPE. RESULTS: Among 3966 prescriptions, 556 (14.0%) were analyzed, with 21.8%, 36.5%, and 41.7% falling into the "yes," "maybe," and "no" categories for removability. Although only 14.0% were categorized, 83.6% of patients received at least one analyzable drug. Among them, 83.8% had at least one potentially removable drug. CONCLUSION: Real-world data highlights the need for caution in drug treatments during TPE to ensure optimal therapeutic outcomes, particularly for specific drugs.

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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.273 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTherapeutic Apheresis and DialysisSame topicHemophilia Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207