MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The management of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients

2007· review· en· W1969313923 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Nursing · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsCancer Care Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineVenous thromboembolismPulmonary embolismComplicationCancerDeep veinPsychological interventionVenous thrombosisThrombosisSurgeryInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), encompassing deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a common complication of cancer and an important cause of preventable mortality in people with cancer. Because VTE can be clinically silent, fatal PE generally occurs without warning, and preventive measures are, therefore, necessary in high-risk patients. Clinical guidelines recommend the use of low-molecular-weight heparins in the treatment and prevention of VTE in patients with cancer, in addition to non-pharmacological interventions aimed at reducing thrombotic risk. Nurses have an important role in helping to identify patients at risk of developing VTE, and in the implementation of preventive or therapeutic regimens, and monitoring the development of complications. Furthermore, nurses are in an ideal position to educate patients on the importance of preventive measures and to help ensure compliance with thromboprophylactic interventions.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.843

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.333 · 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