MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1489826285 · doi:10.1186/cc2570

Burden of Illness in ThromboEmbolism in Critical Care (BITEC) study: a multicenter Canadian study

2004· article· en· W1489826285 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rina P. Patel, Lauren E. Griffith, M Mead, Sangeeta Mehta, Rick Hodder, Cara Martin, D. Heyland, John C. Marshall, Graeme Rocker, Sarah Peters, France Clarke, Ellen McDonald, Mark Soth, J Muscadere, Nicole Campbell, Gordon Guyatt

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandWestern UniversityDalhousie UniversityHamilton Health SciencesUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityUniversity of WindsorUniversity of Ottawa
FundersB. Braun MelsungenEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical–surgical critically ill patients are at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) during their stay in the intensive care unit (ICU). The rates of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) detected by screening ultrasonography (10%), and DVT and pulmonary embolism (PE) identified at autopsy (20%), suggest that many VTE events are clinically undetected. The burden of illness associated with VTE (DVT and/or PE) diagnosed during critical illness is unclear. The primary objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence and incidence of diagnostically confirmed DVT and PE in medical–surgical ICU patients. The secondary objective was to examine VTE prophylaxis longitudinally, estimating the proportion of VTE events associated with prophylaxis failure versus failure to implement prophylaxis. The tertiary objective was to estimate the morbidity and mortality outcomes of patients with VTE.

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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207