MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013832214 · doi:10.1159/000217144

Diagnostic Problems with Venous Thromboembolic Disease in Pregnancy

2009· review· en· W2013832214 on OpenAlex
Jim Douketis, J S Ginsberg

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueHaemostasis · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVenographyPulmonary embolismPregnancyPulmonary angiographyRadiologyPlethysmographDeep veinThrombosisVenous thrombosisVascular diseaseSurgeryCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the pregnant patient with suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), accurate diagnosis is required to identify patients with DVT or PE who would benefit from appropriate anticoagulant therapy, and to exclude DVT and PE in the majority of patients so they are not exposed to the risks of anticoagulants. The diagnosis of DVT and PE during pregnancy is problematic. The use of invasive diagnostic tests, such as venography and pulmonary angiography, is limited because of the potential risks to the fetus of radiation exposure. Due to hemodynamic changes associated with pregnancy, noninvasive diagnostic tests such as impedance plethysmography and venous Doppler may be falsely abnormal. Diagnostic approaches for DVT and PE will be outlined that can accurately and safely confirm or exclude suspected DVT and PE during pregnancy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.273 · 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