MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030347075 · doi:10.1097/hco.0000000000000103

Postthrombotic syndrome

2014· review· en· W2030347075 on OpenAlexaff
J.‐P. Galanaud, Susan R. Kahn

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Cardiology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) is the most frequent complication of deep vein thrombosis. Its pathophysiology is incompletely understood and therapeutic options are limited. This review aims to present and discuss recently published studies that have improved our knowledge related to PTS. RECENT FINDINGS: From a prognostic point of view, some polymorphisms of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 and platelet endothelial cell adhesion molecule 1 influence the degree of thrombus resolution after deep vein thrombosis and the subsequent rate of PTS, and could help in predicting the risk of PTS. From a therapeutic point of view, the results of a large multicenter placebo-controlled trial suggest an absence of effectiveness of elastic compression stockings to prevent PTS. In addition, although the Cavent trial of catheter-directed thrombolysis to treat ilio-femoral deep vein thrombosis showed significant reduction in the incidence of PTS that was cost-effective, secondary analyses did not show dramatic improvements in quality of life associated with use of catheter-directed thrombolysis. SUMMARY: Choice of anticoagulant to treat deep vein thrombosis may represent a new cornerstone of PTS therapeutic management. Studies are needed to assess the impact of new oral anticoagulants and the benefit of extended courses of low molecular weight heparins on the risk of PTS.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations27
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in CardiologySame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207