Suspected Pulmonary Embolism in Pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ventilation-perfusion (VQ) scanning is used when pulmonary embolism (PE) is suspected during pregnancy; however, the distribution of lung scan results and safety of VQ scanning have never been studied. OBJECTIVE: To study the distribution of lung scan results and safety of VQ scanning as well as the safety of withholding anticoagulation therapy following a normal or nondiagnostic scan in pregnant women. METHODS: The study group comprised 120 consecutive pregnant women who presented with suspected PE. Clinical data were collected, and the lung scans were reinterpreted by 2 independent experts. Subsequent pregnancy and pediatric outcomes were determined by direct patient follow-up. RESULTS: During the study period, 120 pregnant women (mean age, 32 years) underwent 121 VQ scans. Eight cases (6.6%) were already receiving treatment for venous thromboembolism prior to VQ scanning. In the remaining 113 scans, 83 (73.5%) were interpreted as normal, 28 (24.8%) as nondiagnostic, and 2 (1.8%) as high probability. In the 104 women who did not receive anticoagulation therapy following lung scanning (80 normal and 24 nondiagnostic), no venous thromboembolic events were reported (mean [range] length of follow-up, 20.6 [0.5-108] months). Examination of pediatric data from 110 live births (90.2%) (mean [range] age, 20.5 [0.5-100] months) revealed no increase in the rates of congenital and developmental anomalies. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of high-probability VQ scans in pregnant women with suspected PE and probable PE is very low. Withholding anticoagulation in pregnant women with normal or nondiagnostic VQ scans is probably safe. In addition, pediatric risks from VQ scans are low. Large prospective studies are needed to evaluate diagnostic strategies for pregnant women with suspected PE.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".