Evaluation of the use of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalised medical patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is effective in the prevention of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) in medical patients. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on medical inpatients at two academic hospitals in Hamilton, Ontario to investigate if patients received VTE prophylaxis as per current guidelines. RESULTS: An analysis was performed on 762 patient charts and 170 met inclusion criteria for use of pharmacological VTE prophylaxis. Of these, 91 (54%) received pharmacological VTE prophylaxis. In 63 patients with a contraindication to pharmacological VTE prophylaxis, 16 (25%) received non-pharmacological VTE prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: The provision rate of pharmacological VTE prophylaxis in hospitalised medical patients who met pre-defined clinical criteria for prophylaxis was 54%. The rate of prophylaxis increased with additional VTE risk factors to a peak rate of 67%. There is room for the development of strategies to improve the use of VTE prophylaxis in hospitalised medical patients.
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 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".