Management of Patients With Unprovoked Venous Thromboembolism: An Evidence-Based and Practical Approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OPINION STATEMENT: The management of patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism is a common and challenging clinical problem. Although the initial antithrombotic management is well-established, there is uncertainty about the optimal long-term anticoagulant management, specifically whether patients should receive a short (i.e., 3- to 6-month) duration of anticoagulant therapy or indefinite anticoagulation. Factors that may be considered to estimate patients' risk for recurrent thromboembolism include the mode of initial clinical presentation, as deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, patient sex, antecedent hormonal therapy use, thrombophilia, D-dimer levels, and residual vein occlusion in patients with deep vein thrombosis. Many of these factors have been integrated into clinical prediction guides which stratify patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism according to their risk for disease recurrence and, thereby, can assist clinicians in decisions about the duration of anticoagulation. The objective of this review is to consider the evidence relating to the clinical significance of purported risk factors and provide a practical case-based approach to guide decisions on duration of anticoagulation for patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it