Estimating Quality of Life in Acute Venous Thrombosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Future funding for new treatments in venous thromboembolism will be guided by cost-utility analyses. There is little available information on the utility of acute venous thromboembolism, limiting the validity of economic analyses. OBJECTIVE: To measure the quality of life in the health states relating to thromboembolism cost-utility analyses. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. SETTING: A single-center, university-affiliated thrombosis clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred sixteen thrombosis clinic patients with a history of lower limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE). EXPOSURES: Participants consented to take a standard gamble interview. Each participant rated the quality of life in acute DVT, acute PE, and bleeding complication health states. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The standard gamble measured quality of life (utility value) for acute DVT, acute PE, major intracranial bleeding event, minor intracranial bleeding event, and gastrointestinal bleeding event. RESULTS: Two hundred fifteen responses were included in the analysis. Twenty-six percent had experienced both PE and DVT; 54%, DVT alone; and 20%, PE alone. Forty-two percent had experienced more than 1 episode of thrombosis, and 23% had had cancer-associated thrombosis. We found the median utility for acute DVT was 0.81 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.55-0.94); acute PE, 0.75 (IQR, 0.45-0.91); major intracranial bleeding event, 0.15 (IQR, 0.00-0.65); minor intracranial bleeding event, 0.75 (IQR, 0.55-0.92); and gastrointestinal bleeding event, 0.65 (IQR, 0.15-0.86). The median length of symptoms for DVT or PE was 1 week (IQR, <1-3 weeks). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: To our knowledge, this is the largest published study on utilities in which the participants had personal experience of venous thromboembolism. We present unique information for economic analyses but have also identified future challenges for research in this area. Our summary results differ from those previously published, and we found wide variation in individual responses.
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 | 0.011 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".