Patient Outcomes After Deep Vein Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism<subtitle>The Worcester Venous Thromboembolism Study</subtitle>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite advances in the management of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), relatively few contemporary data describe and compare outcomes in patients with these common conditions from a more generalizable community-based perspective. The purpose of this study was to measure and compare clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with validated symptomatic PE and isolated DVT in a New England community. METHODS: The medical records of residents from the Worcester area with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes consistent with possible venous thromboembolism (VTE) during 1999, 2001, and 2003 were independently validated and reviewed by trained abstractors. RESULTS: Patients who presented with PE or isolated DVT experienced similar rates of subsequent PE, overall VTE, and major bleeding during 3-year follow-up (5.9% vs 5.1%, 15.0% vs 17.9%, and 15.6% vs 12.4%, respectively). Mortality was significantly increased at 1-month follow-up in patients who initially presented with PE (13.0% vs 5.4%); this difference persisted at 3 years (35.3% vs 29.6%). Patients whose course was complicated by major bleeding were more likely to experience recurrent VTE or to die at 3 years than those without these complications. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who presented with PE had similar rates of subsequent PE or recurrent VTE compared with patients with isolated DVT. However, rates of recurrent VTE and major bleeding after DVT and PE remain unacceptably high in the community setting. Efforts are needed to identify patients most at risk for VTE-associated complications and to develop better anticoagulation strategies conducive to long-term use in the community setting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".