Monitoring of Thromboembolic Events Prophylaxis: Where Do We Stand?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Thromboembolic events are one of the most important causes of mortality in the hospitalized patients. Evaluation of anticoagulants intake patterns compared to the standard treatment guidelines is necessary for improving the quality of prophylaxis managements. The present study was performed to evaluate the pattern of heparin and enoxaparin intake compared to the standard treatment guidelines for thromboprophylaxis. Methods: The present study was conducted on 305 patients admitted to the two referral teaching hospitals. The patients were classified according to the treatment guidelines of American College of Chest Physicians and based on the type of risk (low, moderate, and high). Finally, prophylaxis regimen was assessed based on the standard treatment guidelines and the intervention was performed in case of contradiction. Results: In this study, averagely, prophylactic regimen showed 83.3% compliance with the standard treatment guidelines. Moreover, 188 patients (61.6%) were in moderate and high risk groups and needed prophylaxis therapy. Among these patients, 93% (175 patients) received appropriate prophylaxis. According to the results, being above 40 years old, infection, and inactivity were the most important risk factors in the patients with the prevalence of 81.6%, 47.9%, and 43.3%, respectively. Conclusion: Although treatment guidelines are available for the prophylaxis of thromboembolic events, prophylaxis regimens are not always administered in accordance with these guidelines. Failure to observe these guidelines could increase the cost of treatment and risk of thrombosis as well as other serious problems for the patients. J Hematol. 2015;4(4):223-227 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jh232e
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".