A Pilot Study to Assess the Feasibility of a Multicenter Cluster Randomized Trial for the Management of Asymptomatic Persons with a Thrombophilia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is controversy whether asymptomatic first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) and thrombophilia should be screened, followed, and prescribed prophylaxis during risk periods. We recruited consecutive probands with idiopathic VTE and thrombophilia from our thrombosis clinics. Those FDRs with thrombophilia were randomized in family clusters to receive one-time verbal counseling and no organized follow-up or counseling, educational material, reminder aids and follow-up. Only 203 of 1,129 FDRs were eligible and consented. Dropouts were common; 1 FDR (1.7%) developed VTE. VTE risk, ability to treat and prevent were underestimated by the participants. Patients with VTE and thrombophilia and their FDRs are often not interested in thrombophilia testing. Despite education to inform their knowledge, interest and follow-up were less than ideal. The question of the best educational approach in these patients remains unanswered. The value of testing and following asymptomatic carriers of probands with VTE and thrombophilia remains unknown.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".