Recurrent venous thromboembolism after pregnancy-associated versus unprovoked thromboembolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is not known whether women who develop venous thromboembolism (VTE) during pregnancy have a higher or lower incidence of recurrent VTE than women with unprovoked VTE. The aim of the study was to compare the risk of recurrent VTE among women with pregnancy-associated VTE to women with unprovoked VTE. Hospital discharge data identified women age 18-46 years old with pregnancy-associated or unprovoked index VTE between 1994 and 2005. Risk of recurrent VTE was compared between six and 60 months after the index event using both age-matched comparison of disease-free survival and proportional hazard modelling, adjusting for age and other risk factors. The Kaplan-Meier incidence of recurrent VTE in 1085 women with pregnancy-associated VTE was 5.8% versus 10.4% in 7625 women with unprovoked VTE (p = 0.02). Twelve of 34 (35%) recurrent events in the pregnancy-associated group occurred during a subsequent pregnancy compared with 29 of 331 (8.7%) events in the unprovoked group (p < 0.001). In the risk-adjusted multivariate model, women with pregnancy-associated VTE had a significantly lower risk of recurrent VTE (HR = 0.6, 95%CI = 0.4-0.9). Overall, the incidence of recurrent VTE during subsequent pregnancies was higher in the pregnancy group, 21 of 465 (4.5%), than in the unprovoked group, 37 of 1353 (2.7%, RR = 1.7, CI: 1.0-2.8). Compared to women with unprovoked VTE, women with pregnancy-associated VTE had a significantly lower long-term risk of recurrent VTE but a higher risk of recurrent VTE during a subsequent pregnancy. These findings should be considered when decisions are made about VTE prophylaxis in women with a history of pregnancy-associated VTE.
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 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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".