The Effect of Prothrombotic Blood Abnormalities on Risk of Deep Vein Thrombosis in Users of Hormone Replacement Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed the effect of prothrombotic blood abnormalities on the risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) with hormone replacement therapy (HRT). METHODS: We studied postmenopausal women with suspected DVT in whom HRT use and prothrombotic blood abnormalities were sought. Cases had unprovoked DVT and controls had no DVT and without DVT risk factors. The risk of DVT was determined in women with and without prothrombotic abnormalities. RESULTS: A total of 510 postmenopausal women with suspected DVT were assessed; 57 cases and 283 controls were identified. Compared to HRT, nonusers without the factor V Leiden mutation, the risk of DVT was increased in estrogen-progestin HRT users (odds ratio [OR], 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2-8.6) and in nonusers with the factor V Leiden mutation (OR, 5.3; 1.9-15.4) and appears multiplied in users of estrogen-progestin HRT with the factor V Leiden mutation (OR, 17.1; 3.7-78). Compared to HRT, nonusers with normal factor VIII, the risk of DVT was increased in estrogen-progestin HRT users with normal factor VIII (OR, 2.8; 1.0-7.9) and in HRT nonusers with the highest factor VIII quartile (OR, 6.0; 2.1-17), and appears to be multiplied in women who are users of estrogen-progestin HRT with the highest factor VIII quartile (OR, 17.0; 3.6-80). CONCLUSIONS: In postmenopausal women who are estrogen-progestin HRT users, the presence of the factor V Leiden mutation or an elevated factor VIII level appears to have a multiplicative effect on their overall risk of DVT, increasing it 17-fold compared to women without these blood abnormalities who are HRT nonusers.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".