The Risk of Venous Thrombosis, Including Cerebral Vein Thrombosis, Among Women With Thrombophilia and Oral Contraceptive Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several small studies have reported an elevated risk of venous thrombosis (VT) with thrombophilia and oral contraceptive (OCP) use. We aimed to summarize the risk of VT among women with thrombophilia and OCP use and to assess the interaction between the 2 factors. We selected 15 studies that assessed the prevalence of OCP use and thrombophilia among reproductive-aged women. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for each study and pooled using the random effects model. We found an increased risk of VT among women with OCP use (pooled OR 3.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9-4.5) and with thrombophilia (pooled OR 4.5, CI 3.4-5.9), respectively. Heterogeneity was significant (I (2) >80%). Women with both thrombophilia and OCP use had a 14-fold risk of VT compared to healthy OCP nonusers (pooled OR 14.25, CI 6.2-32.8). Oral contraceptive use and thrombophilia similarly increase VT risk. Our study confirms an interaction between OCP use and thrombophilia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".