MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Frequency and determinants of the postthrombotic syndrome after venous thromboembolism

2006· review· en· W2095964567 on OpenAlexafffund
Susan R. Kahn

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicinePost-thrombotic syndromeVenous thromboembolismIntensive care medicineIncidence (geometry)Venous thrombosisThrombosisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) is the most common complication of deep venous thrombosis (DVT). Identifying which patients are at high risk of developing PTS would help improve the management of patients with DVT and allow physicians to provide patients with individualized information on their expected prognosis. This review discusses the knowledge gained from key studies over the last decade on the incidence and determinants of PTS, with special emphasis on published studies from the last 2 years. RECENT FINDINGS: About a third to half of DVT patients will develop PTS, in most cases within 1-2 years of acute DVT. Important risk factors for PTS appear to be ipsilateral recurrence of DVT, poor quality of initial anticoagulation for the treatment of DVT and increased body mass index. SUMMARY: Preventing DVT recurrence by providing adequate intensity and duration of anticoagulation for the initial DVT and using effective thromboprophylaxis in high-risk settings is likely to reduce the frequency of PTS. Despite some advances in identifying risk factors for PTS, however, it is still not possible to reliably predict an individual patient's risk of developing PTS after an episode of DVT. Further studies of clinical determinants and biological markers of increased risk of PTS are needed to ultimately improve long-term prognosis after DVT.

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)0.000
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 score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations42
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Pulmonary MedicineSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207