Fibrinolytic Variables in Patients with Recurrent Venous Thrombosis: a Prospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine whether fibrinolytic testing predicts recurrent venous thrombosis, we have performed a prospective cohort study in which 303 patients with a first episode of venous thromboembolism underwent comprehensive fibrinolytic testing while receiving oral anticoagulants, and after anticoagulants had been discontinued. They were then followed for up to 3 years for recurrent venous thrombosis. No systematic differences in the levels or activity of type 1 plasminogen activator inhibitor (PAI-1), tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) or euglobulin clot lysis times were detected between patients who did, or did not, suffer recurrent thrombosis. There were also no differences in these variables when patients whose initial thrombosis was idiopathic were compared to patients whose thrombosis occurred in the setting of a known thrombotic risk factor. Based on these results, neither measuring fibrinolytic parameters in patients with venous thromboembolism, nor modification of treatment based on the results of such testing, are justified. Our study also confirms that patients with idiopathic venous thromboembolism have a high risk of recurrence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".