Venous Thromboembolism in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: An Epidemiological Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This article aims to review the evidence implicating inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) as a risk factor for the development of venous thromboembolic events (VTEs), as well as to highlight additional risk factors and preventative and treatment strategies relating to the VTEs in IBD patients. METHODS: Medline and Embase databases were systematically searched and all original articles pertaining to VTEs in IBD patients were evaluated for suitability of content and methodology. RESULTS: Multiple large studies have demonstrated that IBD patients have a 1.5- to 3.5-fold higher risk of incurring VTEs when compared with non-IBD patients. A large population-based study showed that IBD activity is associated with the development of VTEs. Although the greatest relative increase in the risk of VTEs with disease activity was observed in ambulatory IBD patients, hospitalized IBD patients had a markedly higher baseline risk of VTEs than ambulatory patients. Among VTE-related hospitalizations, the presence of IBD was associated with a 2.5-fold increased risk of mortality in one population-based study. No studies have specifically evaluated the potential benefit of VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized or ambulatory IBD patients. Studies to date do not support an increased bleeding risk with moderate doses of anticoagulant medications in IBD patients with active disease. CONCLUSIONS: IBD patients are at an increased risk of sustaining VTEs and may be at an increased risk of VTE-related mortality when compared with non-IBD patients. IBD activity is an independent risk factor for VTE development. Future large prospective studies are required to better assess risk factors, health outcomes, and prevention strategies associated with the development of VTEs in IBD patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".