Review: flight times >8 hours and presence of risk factors for VTE increases travel related VTE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Philbrick JT, Shumate R, Siadaty MS, et al . Air travel and venous thromboembolism: a systematic review. J Gen Int Med 2007;22:107–14. [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q What are the risk factors for travel related venous thromboembolism (VTE)? Which preventive treatments are effective? Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care ★★★★★★☆ Haematology ★★★★★★☆ IM/Ambulatory care ★★★★★☆☆ Tropical & travel Medicine ★★★★★☆☆ ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Data sources: Medline (1966 to December 2005), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and bibliographies of relevant studies. ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Study selection and assessment: case control or cohort studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any form of travel as a risk factor of VTE or preventive measures for travel related VTE. Case reports, abstracts, and subgroup analyses of previously published studies were excluded. 25 studies met the selection criteria: 6 case control studies (n = 207–988), 10 cohort studies (n = 320 to >135 million), and 9 RCTs (n = 186–833); most studies evaluated air travel. The interventions evaluated in the 9 RCTs were low molecular weight heparin, aspirin, graduated compression stockings (12–30 mm Hg at … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJournal%2Bof%2Bgeneral%2Binternal%2Bmedicine%2B%253A%2B%2Bofficial%2Bjournal%2Bof%2Bthe%2BSociety%2Bfor%2BResearch%2Band%2BEducation%2Bin%2BPrimary%2BCare%2BInternal%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DJ%2BGen%2BIntern%2BMed%26rft.aulast%253DPhilbrick%26rft.auinit1%253DJ.%2BT.%26rft.volume%253D22%26rft.issue%253D1%26rft.spage%253D107%26rft.epage%253D114%26rft.atitle%253DAir%2Btravel%2Band%2Bvenous%2Bthromboembolism%253A%2Ba%2Bsystematic%2Breview.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1007%252Fs11606-006-0016-0%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F17351849%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s11606-006-0016-0&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=17351849&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F12%2F4%2F105.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000244521800016&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".