Management and adherence to VTE treatment guidelines in a national prospective cohort study in the Canadian outpatient setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Documenting patterns and outcomes of venous thromboembolism (VTE) management and degree of adherence by clinicians to treatment guidelines could help identify remediable gaps in patient care. Prospective, clinical practice-based data from Canadian outpatient settings on management of VTE, degree of adherence with treatment guidelines and frequency of recurrent VTE and bleeding during follow-up was obtained in a multicentre, prospective observational study. From 12 Canadian centres, we assessed 868 outpatients with acute symptomatic VTE who received the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) enoxaparin alone or with vitamin K antagonists (VKA), at baseline and at six months (or at the end of treatment, whichever came first). Index VTE was limb deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in 583 (67.2%) patients, pulmonary embolism (PE) with or without DVT in 262 (30.2%) patients, and unusual site DVT in 23 (2.6%) patients. VTE was unprovoked in 399 (46.0%) patients, associated with cancer in 74 (8.5%) patients, transient risk factors in 327 (37.7%) patients and hormonal factors in 68 (7.8%) patients.With regard to guideline adherence, 58 (7.3%) patients received <5 days LMWH and 114 (14.5%) had overlap <1 day. Among patients with cancer-related VTE, 59.5% were prescribed LMWH monotherapy and 43.2% received such treatment for >3 months. Only 38.1% of patients with transient VTE risk factors had received thromboprophylaxis. Our study provides useful information on clinical presentation, management and related outcomes in Canadian outpatients with VTE. Our results suggest there may be important gaps in use of thromboprophylaxis to prevent VTE and use of LMWH monotherapy to treat cancer-related 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".