MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Management of thrombosis in cancer: primary prevention and secondary prophylaxis

2005· review· en· W1975995970 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Haematology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineCancerClinical trialVenous thromboembolismThrombosisPopulationAnticoagulantNatural historySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although traditional anticoagulant regimens are highly effective and safe in most patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE), the aggressive natural history of VTE and the high risk of serious bleeding in cancer patients can complicate the management of VTE. In addition, because few clinical trials have focused on the prevention and treatment of VTE in this unique patient population, many clinical questions regarding the care of cancer patients with VTE remain unanswered. Currently, low-molecular-weight heparins and oral vitamin K antagonists are the most commonly used agents for the primary and secondary prophylaxis of VTE in patients with or without cancer, but their use is associated with pharmacological and practical limitations. This review will provide an up-to-date summary of the clinical trials that have addressed the management of VTE in patients with cancer. A brief discussion of the potential application of novel anticoagulants in these clinical settings is also included.

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 score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.317 · 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