MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407868200 · doi:10.1177/02676591251321070

ECMO for the pregnant and peripartum patient: A practical review of indications, unique management considerations, and an approach framework

2025· review· en· W4407868200 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePerfusion · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Issues in Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationContext (archaeology)Intensive care medicinePopulationWarrantPandemicPregnancyMedical emergencyScarcityCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DiseaseSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) to support the pregnant patient and fetus requires a complex decision-making process. Peripartum ECMO requires coordinated and informed decision-making between an interdisciplinary team of experts, incorporating the unique considerations and, at times, competing physiologic priorities of the pregnant patient. It is often confounded by a scarcity of local relevant experience engendered by its rare occurrence. No event has made the need for an organized approach to the utilization of ECMO in pregnant patients more pressing than the COVID pandemic. The conditions affecting pregnant patients that warrant ECMO consideration are high stakes and, at times, ethically challenging, although outcomes are favourable compared to the general population. This review provides background information and context, followed by a practical approach to the care and specific medical management of patients who are facing life-threatening conditions warranting ECMO while pregnant.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.346 · 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