Weekly risk of venous thromboembolism recurrence in patients receiving oral anticoagulants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data is currently lacking in evaluating the weekly rates of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) among patients receiving anticoagulants. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the risk of VTE recurrence during the first 12 weeks after an index VTE event. METHODS: Healthcare claims from Truven Health Analytics MarketScan database from January 2007 to June 2012 were analyzed. Adult patients with ≥1 diagnosis of VTE, ≥1 anticoagulant prescription dispensed within 7 days of the index VTE hospitalization discharge or outpatient/emergency room (ER) visit (index date), and a proportion of days covered ≥0.7 on the anticoagulant therapy during the 12 weeks post-discharge were included. The weekly risk of VTE recurrence was evaluated with the hazard function using the life-table method. RESULTS: A total of 105,682 patients with a VTE were included. Mean age was 59 years and 49% were female. The risk of VTE recurrence was at its highest during the first and second weeks, at 0.78% and 0.83%, respectively. The risk remained high during Weeks 3, 4, and 5 with risks of VTE recurrence of 0.63%, 0.52%, and 0.39%, respectively. The risk of VTE recurrence stabilized around Week 7, with risks of 0.26%, 0.22%, 0.20%, 0.25%, 0.23%, and 0.23% for Weeks 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Claims data may have contained inaccuracies. During hospitalizations it was not possible to assess anticoagulant use or a VTE recurrence occurring in the same hospitalization as the index VTE event. CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that the risk of VTE recurrence remains high in the early weeks after an index VTE among patients receiving anticoagulants.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".