MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063354314 · doi:10.1136/ebn.7.3.86

Review: elastic compression stockings prevent post-thrombotic syndrome in patients with deep venous thrombosis

2004· letter· en· W2063354314 on OpenAlexaff
Gloria Elton

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2004
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesHamilton General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCompression stockingsVenous thrombosisPost-thrombotic syndromeThrombosisMEDLINERandomized controlled trialClinical trialMeta-analysisDeep veinPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kolbach DN, Sandbrink MW, Hamulyak K, et al . Non-pharmaceutical measures for prevention of post-thrombotic syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;(1):CD004174 (latest version 21 Aug 2003). Q Are non-pharmaceutical interventions effective and safe for preventing post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) in patients with deep venous thrombosis (DVT)? ### ![Graphic][1]</img>Data sources: Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Specialised Trials Register (January 2003), which is based on searches of Medline and EMBASE/Excerpta Medica; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2002); hand searches of Scripta Phlebologica (1993–2000), J Thromb Haemost (2003), conference proceedings, and citations of identified studies; and experts in the field. ### ![Graphic][2]</img>Study selection and assessment: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or clinical controlled trials that compared medical elastic stockings (pressure 20–30 mm Hg or 30–40 mm Hg … [1]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [2]: /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

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207