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 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".