MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Duration of anticoagulant therapy for venous thromboembolism: balancing benefits and harms on the long term

2012· review· en· W2049601701 on OpenAlexaff
Paulien G. de Jong, Michiel Coppens, Saskia Middeldorp

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Haematology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnticoagulant therapyVenous thromboembolismAnticoagulantIntensive care medicineRisk factorSurgeryInternal medicineThrombosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is effectively treated with anticoagulant therapy. After an initial treatment phase, extended treatment is effective to prevent recurrence after a first event but this is at the expense of a continued risk of bleeding. Ideally, patients at a high risk of recurrence and low risk of bleeding continue anticoagulant therapy, and for those at low risk of recurrence the duration of treatment can be limited. Identifying these patients, however, is difficult. Duration of treatment after a first VTE provoked by a transient risk factor should be limited to 3 months. Although guidelines suggest extended treatment for all patients after unprovoked VTE unless bleeding risk is high, we emphasize that the long-term risks of recurrent VTE off anticoagulation are uncertain whereas the risk of bleeding associated with anticoagulant therapy increases with age. In the absence of evidence of replaced mortality or improved quality of life with extended anticoagulant treatment, we suggest a limited duration for most patients after a first VTE. Extended treatment can be considered, based mainly on patient preference.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designSystematic review
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of HaematologySame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207