MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074752597 · doi:10.1586/erc.13.51

Adapting the<scp>D</scp>-dimer cutoff for thrombosis detection in elderly outpatients

2013· review· en· W2074752597 on OpenAlexaff
Marion Andro, Marc Righini, Grégoire Le Gal

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCutoffD-dimerPulmonary embolismDeep veinThrombosisAge adjustmentVenous thromboembolismVenous thrombosisSurgeryInternal medicineEpidemiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

D-dimer measurement is an important step in diagnostic strategies for venous thromboembolism. It allows the safe ruling out of the diagnosis with no need for imaging tests in approximately 30% of outpatients. However, the usefulness of d-dimer is limited in elderly patients; the likelihood of a negative d-dimer strongly decreases with age, making physicians reluctant to order the test. Several attempts to improve the performance of D-dimer in elderly patients have been pursued. Recently, an age-adjusted cutoff was derived; the optimal cutoff value (in µg/l) appears to be equal to the patient's age (in years) multiplied by ten in patients over 50 years of age with a low pretest clinical risk of venous thromboembolism. This age-adjusted cutoff value has been extensively and externally validated in retrospective studies that included mostly outpatients with suspected deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism and used various quantitative D-dimer assays. All available studies confirmed the increased usefulness and similar safety of the age-adjusted cutoff compared with the conventional cutoff, the most important benefit being obtained in elderly patients. However, before any recommendation for clinical practice can be made, a prospective diagnostic management outcome study is lacking, in which all low clinical risk patients with D-dimer levels below their age-adjusted cutoff would be left untreated with no further diagnostic testing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.007
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations11
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Cardiovascular TherapySame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207