MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

758

2012· article· en· W2313334975 on OpenAlexaff
François Lamontagne, Diane Heels‐Ansdell, Peter Dodek, Maureen O. Meade, Yoanna Skrobik, Ellen McDonald, Shirley Vallance, Nicole Zytaruk

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health SciencesHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary embolismHazard ratioThrombusMechanical ventilationVenous thrombosisDeep veinInternal medicineIncidence (geometry)ThrombosisRisk factorMalignancySurgeryCardiologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The frequency, predisposition and significance of venous thrombi outside the legs are unclear. Our objective was to describe the incidence, risk factors, and consequences of non-leg venous thrombi in the ICU. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that non-leg-thrombi would occur in 2% of patients, would have no specific risk factors, and would not increase mortality. Methods: We conducted nested observational study in a 3746 patient thromboprophylaxis trial (NCT00182143). Agreement between 2 thrombus adjudicators on was calculated using chance-corrected agreement. We conducted a Cox proportional hazard multivariable analysis introducing possible baseline (APACHE II score, body mass index, malignancy) and time-dependent (vasopressors. statins) risk factors. We describe consequences of these thrombi in terms of pulmonary embolism (PE) risk and duration of ICU and hospital stay. To examine whether a proximal non-leg-deep vein thrombosis (DVT) influenced ICU and hospital mortality risks, we conducted a multivariable analysis adjusted for age, APACHE II score, mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, dialysis, and platelet count <50,000x109/L. Results: 84 (2.2%) patients were diagnosed with a non-leg thrombus (deep or superficial). Most were incident; of these, 59 (1.6%) were deep and 75 (2.0%) were both deep and superficial. Adjudicator agreement on the classification was excellent (kappa 0.91). All patients with a non-leg DVT had a central venous catheter (CVC) in ICU, compared to only 86.2% of those without a non-leg DVT. The only independent risk factor for non-leg DVT was cancer (malignancy in the last 5 years; hazard ratio 2.22 (1.06-4.65); p=0.034). Compared to patients without a non-leg DVT, those who had one were more likely to develop a PE (14.9% vs 1.9%, p<0.001) and had a longer stay in ICU (19 vs 9 days, p <0.001) and hospital (39.5 vs 21 days, p<0.001). Adjusting for confounders, a non-leg DVT did not increase ICU mortality (odds ratio 1.09, 0.62-1.92; p=0.757). Conclusions: Non-leg venous thrombi occur in about 2% of ICU patients, often with CVCs or cancer. Although associated with PE and longer lengths of stay, non-leg venous thrombi do not independently increase risk of death.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.6920.590

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care Medicine→Same topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→French-language works237,207→