MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012392460 · doi:10.1159/000093557

Thromboprophylaxis in Medical Patients – Why Not For All?

2006· review· en· W2012392460 on OpenAlexaff
Sam Schulman

Bibliographic record

VenuePathophysiology of Haemostasis and Thrombosis · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFondaparinuxPulmonary embolismDeep veinHeparinThrombosisIntensive care medicineAsymptomaticVenous thromboembolismLow molecular weight heparinRandomized controlled trialSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major problem in non-surgical patients admitted to the hospital, both during the hospitalization period and after discharge. Risk factors for VTE are well known and scoring systems have been published. Nevertheless, prophylaxis against VTE is in many hospitals used less often than ideal and also inappropriately. Electronic tools to alert the physicians to provide prophylaxis and suggest suitable measures have shown promising results with a reduction of clinically relevant VTE. Large randomized clinical trials have demonstrated efficacy of low molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), pentasaccharide(fondaparinux) and unfractionated heparin. The results were, however, driven by asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), including distal DVT in some studies. A reduction of pulmonary embolism is achieved, but without any significant effect on the mortality. The agents are generally safe, with only a small increase of major bleeding, less with LMWH than with unfractionated heparin. The challenge is still to direct the efforts to the most appropriate patients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePathophysiology of Haemostasis and ThrombosisSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207