Mortality rates and risk factors for asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis in medical patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The clinical importance of asymptomatic proximal and distal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) remains uncertain and controversial. The aim of this retrospective, post-hoc analysis was to examine mortality and risk factors for development of proximal DVT in hospitalized patients with acute medical illness who were recruited into a randomized, prospective clinical trial of thromboprophylaxis with dalteparin (PREVENT). We analyzed 1738 patients who had not sustained a symptomatic venous thromboembolic event by Day 21 and who had a complete compression ultrasound of the proximal and distal leg veins on Day 21. We examined the 90-day mortality rates in patients with asymptomatic proximal DVT (Group I, N=80), asymptomatic distal DVT (Group II, N=118) or no DVT (Group III, N=1540). The 90-day mortality rates were 13.75%, 3.39%, and 1.92% for Groups I-III, respectively. The difference in mortality between Group I and Group III was significant (hazard ratio 7.63, 95% CI=3.8-15.3; p <0.0001), whereas the difference between Groups II and III did not reach significance (hazard ratio 1.36, 95% CI=0.41-4.45). The association of asymptomatic proximal DVT with increased mortality remained highly significant after adjusting for differences in baseline demographics and clinical variables. Risk factors significantly associated with the development of proximal DVT included advanced age (p=0.0005), prior DVT (p=0.001), and varicose veins (p=0.04). In conclusion, the high mortality rate in patients with asymptomatic proximal DVT underscores its clinical relevance and supports targeting of asymptomatic proximal DVT as an appropriate endpoint in clinical trials of thromboprophylaxis.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".