Pregnancy-Related Venous Thromboembolism Risk in Asymptomatic Women With Antithrombin Deficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of pregnancy-associated venous thromboembolism in women with asymptomatic antithrombin deficiency. DATA SOURCES: The search was performed on MEDLINE (Ovid and PubMed databases) for the period 1966 to June 2012 and ClinicalTrials.gov as of December 15, 2015. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: A systematic review including randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies was conducted. Selection criteria included objectively diagnosed venous thromboembolism or venous thromboembolism treated with 3 months of anticoagulation before the availability of objective testing. The study population consisted of pregnant women with asymptomatic antithrombin deficiency. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Seven publications were included in the review. No randomized controlled trials were identified. The best available data consist of three retrospective cohort studies and four case-control studies. Pooled results from case-control studies yielded an estimated odds ratio for venous thromboembolism of 6.09 (95% confidence interval 1.58-23.43). No pooled estimates could be obtained for cohort studies. Data on use of thromboprophylaxis were scarce. CONCLUSION: Despite the small number of patients included, and the variation in study designs, pooled results from case-control studies show a significant association between asymptomatic antithrombin deficiency and pregnancy-associated venous thromboembolism. Thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy and postpartum should be considered in these women.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".