MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005568493 · doi:10.1182/blood-2009-07-199174

How I treat postthrombotic syndrome

2009· review· en· W2005568493 on OpenAlexaff
Susan R. Kahn

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCompression stockingsPost-thrombotic syndromeDeep veinThrombosisComplicationQuality of life (healthcare)Venous thrombosisSurgeryPediatricsInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) is a chronic complication of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) that reduces quality of life and has important socioeconomic consequences. More than one-third of patients with DVT will develop PTS, and 5% to 10% of patients will develop severe PTS, which may manifest as venous ulceration. The principal risk factors for PTS are persistent leg symptoms 1 month after the acute episode of DVT, extensive DVT, recurrent ipsilateral DVT, obesity, and older age. Daily use of elastic compression stockings (ECSs) for 2 years after proximal DVT appears to reduce the risk of PTS; however, there is uncertainty about optimal duration of use and compression strength of ECSs and the magnitude of their effect. The cornerstone of managing PTS is compression therapy, primarily using ECSs. Venoactive medications such as aescin and rutoside may provide short-term relief of PTS symptoms. The likelihood of developing PTS after DVT should be discussed with patients, and symptoms and signs of PTS should be monitored during clinical follow-up. Further studies to elucidate the pathophysiology of PTS, to identify clinical and biologic risk factors, and to test new preventive and therapeutic approaches to PTS are needed to ultimately improve the long-term prognosis of patients with DVT.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.007

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations162
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207