Extended Out-of-Hospital Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin for Prophylaxis against Deep Venous Thrombosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Letters1 October 2002Extended Out-of-Hospital Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin for Prophylaxis against Deep Venous ThrombosisRussell D. Hull, MBBS, MSc, Graham F. Pineo, MD, and Andrew F. Mah, BScRussell D. Hull, MBBS, MScUniversity of Calgary; Calgary, Alberta T2N 2T9, Canada (Hull, Pineo, Mah)Search for more papers by this author, Graham F. Pineo, MDUniversity of Calgary; Calgary, Alberta T2N 2T9, Canada (Hull, Pineo, Mah)Search for more papers by this author, and Andrew F. Mah, BScUniversity of Calgary; Calgary, Alberta T2N 2T9, Canada (Hull, Pineo, Mah)Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-137-7-200210010-00021 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail IN RESPONSE:Drs. Murashige and Schneider overstate the issue when they question the safety of extended prophylaxis, particularly in the context of patients receiving out-of-hospital LMWH after elective hip surgery. In our meta-analysis and in another study (1), we found that many randomized trials convincingly demonstrated safety in terms of an absence of major bleeding (0 of 1091 patients). The frequencies of minor bleeding (2.7%) and complicated wound hematoma (0.5%) were low and were similar to those observed in the placebo groups (1).Drs. Murashige and Schneider raise important issues about renal function, osteoporosis and associated vertebral fracture, and thrombocytopenia. ...References1. Hull RD, Pineo GF, Francis C, Bergqvist D, Fellenius C, Soderberg K, et al . Low-molecular-weight heparin prophylaxis using dalteparin extended out-of-hospital vs in-hospital warfarin/out-of-hospital placebo in hip arthroplasty patients: a double-blind, randomized comparison. North American Fragmin Trial Investigators. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:2208-15. [PMID: 10904465] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Siguret V, Pautas E, Février M, Wipff C, Durand-Gasselin B, Laurent M, et al . Elderly patients treated with tinzaparin (Innohep) administered once daily (175 anti-Xa IU/kg): anti-Xa and anti-IIa activities over 10 days. Thromb Haemost. 2000;84:800-4. [PMID: 11127859] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Monreal M, Lafoz E, Olive A, del Rio L, Vedia C. Comparison of subcutaneous unfractionated heparin with a low molecular weight heparin (Fragmin) in patients with venous thromboembolism and contraindications to coumarin. Thromb Haemost. 1994;71:7-11. [PMID: 8165649] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: University of Calgary; Calgary, Alberta T2N 2T9, Canada (Hull, Pineo, Mah) PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoExtended Out-of-Hospital Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin Prophylaxis against Deep Venous Thrombosis in Patients after Elective Hip Arthroplasty Russell D. Hull , Graham F. Pineo , Paul D. Stein , Andrew F. Mah , Susan M. MacIsaac , Ola E. Dahl , Matthew Butcher , Rollin F. Brant , William A. Ghali , David Bergqvist , and Gary E. Raskob Extended Out-of-Hospital Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin for Prophylaxis against Deep Venous Thrombosis Naoko Murashige and Roslyn F. Schneider Metrics 1 October 2002Volume 137, Issue 7Page: 621KeywordsCreatinineHemorrhageHeparinHipLow molecular weight heparinOsteoporosisProphylaxisRisk managementSafety studiesSurgery ePublished: 1 October 2002 Issue Published: 1 October 2002 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2002 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.004 |
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".