An abnormal D-dimer test result indicated that anticoagulant therapy should be continued
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Palareti G, Cosmi B, Legnani C, et al . D-dimer testing to determine the duration of anticoagulation therapy. N Engl J Med 2006;355:1780–9. [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3] Q In patients with a first episode of venous thromboembolism (VTE) who had received vitamin K antagonists for ⩾3 months, does an abnormal D-dimer test result 30 days after discontinuation of anticoagulation therapy predict VTE recurrence? Clinical impact ratings IM/Ambulatory care ★★★★★★★ Haematology ★★★★★★★ ### ![Graphic][4]</img>Design: randomised controlled trial (PROLONG study). ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Allocation: concealed.* ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Blinding: blinded (outcome assessors {and monitoring committee}†).* ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Follow up period: up to 18 months (mean 1.4 y). ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Setting: 30 clinical centres in Italy. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Patients: 619 patients 18–85 years of age (mean age 63 y, 52% men) who had a first episode of symptomatic, unprovoked VTE, including proximal deep vein thrombosis of the lower limbs, pulmonary embolism, or both; had received a vitamin K antagonist (warfarin or acenocoumarol) for ⩾3 months with a target international normalised ratio (INR) of 2.5 (range 2.0–3.0); and had D-dimer testing 30 days after anticoagulation was discontinued. Exclusion criteria … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DNew%2BEngland%2BJournal%2Bof%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DNEJM%26rft.issn%253D0028-4793%26rft.aulast%253DPalareti%26rft.auinit1%253DG.%26rft.volume%253D355%26rft.issue%253D17%26rft.spage%253D1780%26rft.epage%253D1789%26rft.atitle%253DD-Dimer%2BTesting%2Bto%2BDetermine%2Bthe%2BDuration%2Bof%2BAnticoagulation%2BTherapy%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1056%252FNEJMoa054444%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F17065639%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa054444&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=17065639&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F12%2F2%2F45.atom [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".