Management of Patients with Hereditary Hypercoagulable Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The inherited hypercoagulable states can be divided into those that are common and associated with a modest risk of thrombosis (i.e. factor V Leiden and G20210A prothrombin gene) and those that are uncommon but associated with a high risk of thrombosis. There is no convincing evidence that, independent of other clinical factors, the presence of factor V Leiden or the prothrombin gene mutation should influence the use of primary prophylaxis or the duration of anticoagulant therapy following an episode of thrombosis. Indirect evidence suggests that the presence of antithrombin, protein C deficiency, or protein S deficiency justifies avoiding additional risk factors for thrombosis, such as estrogen therapy, and justifies use of more aggressive primary prophylaxis when additional risk factors cannot readily be avoided (e.g. pregnancy). The presence of one of these three abnormalities also favors more prolonged anticoagulant therapy following venous thrombosis. However, their presence or absence appears to have less influence on the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism than whether thrombosis was provoked by a major reversible risk factor, such as surgery.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".