MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022019752 · doi:10.1002/phar.1133

Performance of New Anticoagulants for Thromboprophylaxis in Patients Undergoing Hip and Knee Replacement Surgery

2012· review· en· W2022019752 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Charles E. Mahan, Scott Kaatz

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacotherapy The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchJanssen Scientific Affairs
KeywordsMedicineOrthopedic surgeryDeep veinVenous thromboembolismPulmonary embolismKnee replacementThrombosisIntensive care medicineHip replacementHip surgeryArthroplastySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) represents one of the most preventable complications that occur during hospitalization, and measurement of hospital-associated VTE is becoming a key component in hospital quality measures. Guidelines for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism have been published by several organizations to guide quality of care; however, some of the guidelines are divergent in their recommendations. This disagreement among guidelines is most pronounced in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery. The advent of newer anticoagulants, which are now approved or in late-phase development, have already had an effect on the guidelines and may also affect quality measures in the future. In this article, we review the burden of VTE in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery, highlight the differences in the guidelines, and examine the new anticoagulants as they are related to VTE prophylaxis in this patient group.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacotherapy The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug TherapySame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207