Prospective assessment of the natural history of positive D-dimer results in persons with acute venous thromboembolism (DVT or PE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The natural history of initially positive D-dimers for venous thromboembolism is not known. If it returns to negative in the majority of patients, it would be potentially helpful to diagnose a recurrence. In this study, we prospectively measured D-dimer levels in outpatients with a diagnosis of venous thromboembolism. There were a total of 152 patients with an average age of 57. D-dimer results were performed at baseline and repeated at one week, one month and three months. At baseline 120 of 152 (79%) had a positive D-dimer result. Of those with an initially positive result, 80% were still positive at one week and 39% were still positive at one month. Finally at three months, 13% remained positive. Seven patients had recurrent events and all had persistently elevated D-dimers at one month. This study suggests that a persistently positive D-dimer result after one month of treatment may indicate a higher risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism. D-dimer testing for the diagnosis of recurrence of venous thromboembolism deserves further study.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".