MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Systematic Review: The Trousseau Syndrome Revisited: Should We Screen Extensively for Cancer in Patients with Venous Thromboembolism?

2008· review· en· W2113953182 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Carrier, Grégoire Le Gal, Philip S. Wells, Dean Fergusson, Tim Ramsay, Marc Rodger

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Internal Medicine · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancerCancer screeningVenous thromboembolismMEDLINEInternal medicinePediatricsSurgeryThrombosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Identifying previously undiagnosed cancer in patients with newly diagnosed venous thromboembolism (VTE) is important. Screening for malignant conditions can potentially diagnose more cases of cancer and at earlier stages, thereby preventing cancer-associated morbidity and perhaps mortality. PURPOSE: To summarize the period prevalence of previously undiagnosed cancer at baseline (within 1 month of VTE diagnosis), 6 months, and 12 months after VTE diagnosis and to quantify the additional value of an extensive cancer screening strategy (limited screening plus imaging techniques or tumor marker measurement) at baseline compared with more limited screening (history, physical examination, and simple widely available tests) at baseline. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews. STUDY SELECTION: A total of 36 studies that reported the prevalence of undiagnosed cancer at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months were selected. Fourteen articles and 1 abstract also met inclusion criteria for the assessment of extensive versus limited cancer screening. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data onto standardized forms. DATA SYNTHESIS: The period prevalence of previously undiagnosed cancer in patients with unprovoked VTE was 6.1% (95% CI, 5.0% to 7.1%) at baseline and 10.0% (CI, 8.6% to 11.3%) from baseline to 12 months. An extensive screening strategy using computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis statistically significantly increased the proportion of previously undiagnosed cancer detected from 49.4% (CI, 40.2% to 58.5%) (with limited screening alone) to 69.7% (CI, 61.1% to 77.8%) in patients with unprovoked VTE. LIMITATION: The investigators could not determine complication rates, cost-effectiveness, and difference in morbidity and mortality associated with extensive screening strategies. CONCLUSION: Previously undiagnosed cancer is frequent in patients with unprovoked VTE. Many cases of previously undiagnosed cancer are missed by screening. An extensive cancer screening strategy detects more malignant conditions than does a limited screening strategy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations299
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Internal MedicineSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207