MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Rates of Clinically Apparent Venous Thromboembolism and Death Resulting from Pulmonary Embolism among Unselected Hospitalized Acutely Ill Medical Patients Versus Rates Predicted from Clinical Studies.

2005· article· en· W117179347 on OpenAlexaff
Franco Piovella, Frederick A. Anderson, Hervé Decousus, Gordon FitzGerald, Jean‐François Bergmann, Ajay K. Kakkar, Alex C. Spyropoulos, Rainer B. Zotz, Frederick A. Spencer, Alexander G.G. Turpie

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesHamilton General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary embolismIncidence (geometry)AutopsyProspective cohort studyCause of deathCohort studyInternal medicineVenous thromboembolismObservational studyEmergency medicinePediatricsIntensive care medicineThrombosisDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Without evidence from autopsies, the majority of deaths resulting from pulmonary emboli (PE) are indistinguishable from deaths due to other cardiovascular diseases. This has led to a gap in perceptions between the benefits and risks of providing venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis. In this study, we estimated the incidence of clinically apparent VTE in hospitalized acutely ill medical patients in The International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE), and compared this with the expected incidence derived from clinical studies that used autopsy or prospective venographic confirmation of clinically important VTE. Methods Beginning in July 2002, a consecutive, unselected sample of patients who were aged ≥18 years and hospitalized for ≥3 days with an acute medical illness, were enrolled in this observational cohort from 49 hospitals in 12 countries. Up to 31 March 2005, 6946 patients were enrolled. Results Based on autopsy series of all-cause in-hospital deaths reported in the literature, PE is associated with 10% of deaths, is the primary cause in 5%, and is clinically recognized as the primary cause in 1.5% of deaths. A review of clinical studies with mandatory venography resulted in predicted rates of 10% for all VTE and 1% for clinically recognized (confirmed) VTE. In IMPROVE, there were 4/291 (1.4%) deaths due to clinically recognized PE (vs. 4 predicted). There were 79 (1.1%) treated VTE events (vs. 69 predicted). Conclusions Observed rates of death due to PE and clinically recognized VTE in a real-world setting are consistent with predictions from clinical study data. Physicians should be aware of the significant gap that exists between clinically important and clinically evident VTE events. Reliance on the low rates of clinically recognized events to assess the seriousness of this disease can lead to a significant under-estimation of its impact on public health and a consequent failure to realize the proven benefits of VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized acutely ill medical patients.

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)0.005
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→French-language works237,207→