Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the use of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis and the incidence of thrombotic events in patients with acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. METHODS: Individuals admitted with a primary diagnosis of a GI bleed along with any endoscopically confirmed source (over a two-year period) were included. Patient comorbidity and data regarding anticoagulation or antiplatelet agent use before hospitalization were collected, in addition to type of VTE prophylaxis and duration of treatment. The primary end point was the development of VTE (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) within one year of presentation. RESULTS: Data from 504 patients admitted with GI bleeding were eligible for review. The total number of VTE events was 20 (4%) while the mortality rate during hospitalization was 4.6%; 397 patients were not given VTE prophylaxis during their hospitalization. Of the patients who were given VTE prophylaxis, 68 received prophylactic heparin or heparin derivatives during their admission. One hundred sixty-five patients had at least one other significant risk factor for VTE including recent or subsequent surgery, past thrombotic event or malignancy. The incidence of thrombosis in those with significant risk factors for VTE was significantly higher than those without (8.5% versus 1.8%; P=0.0009). Overall, there was no significant difference in thrombotic events between individuals receiving pharmacological prophylaxis (1.2%) and those who did not (2.8%) (P=0.4). CONCLUSION: Overall, VTE prophylaxis did not significantly affect thrombotic events in patients admitted for an active GI bleed.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".