MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139355127 · doi:10.1097/moh.0b013e32830abde2

Long-term prognosis after deep venous thrombosis

2008· review· en· W2139355127 on OpenAlexaff
Hadia Shbaklo, Susan R. Kahn

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Hematology · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePost-thrombotic syndromeDeep veinCompression stockingsThrombosisVenous thrombosisRandomized controlled trialVenous thromboembolismIntensive care medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is associated with significant long-term complications such as the postthrombotic syndrome (PTS). The present review focuses on the risk determinants of PTS after DVT, means to treat and prevent PTS, and the impact of PTS on patients and society. Knowledge acquired during the last decade is presented, with emphasis on reports published in the past 2 years. RECENT FINDINGS: PTS occurs in 20-50% of patients within 1-2 years after DVT. The principal risk factor for PTS identified to date is recurrent ipsilateral DVT; obesity and poor quality of anticoagulation for the treatment of DVT also appear to play a role. Although treatment options for established PTS are limited, a new battery-operated lower limb venous return assist device was recently shown in a randomized trial to reduce symptoms and signs in patients with severe PTS. Daily use of compression stockings after DVT appears to reduce the risk of PTS, and early use may be better than the later use. SUMMARY: Further studies of clinical determinants and biological markers of increased risk of PTS as well as testing of preventive and therapeutic modalities for PTS are needed to ultimately improve long-term prognosis after DVT.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations27
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in HematologySame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207