The rationale and evidence for the treatment of lower-extremity deep venous thrombosis with thrombolytic agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents the rationale and evidence for the treatment of lower-extremity deep venous thrombosis (DVT) with thrombolytic agents. DVT is a common condition that has both acute and chronic complications. Standard treatment including anticoagulation therapy and compression stockings may not be entirely adequate, because a significant proportion of patients eventually develop severe post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS). Thrombolytic agents offer a potential advantage because they may reduce residual vein stenosis and valve damage. The authors performed a systematic review of published randomized trials evaluating thrombolytic agents for DVT. The authors determined that thrombolysis therapy results in greater lysis and complication rates than does anticoagulation alone. The authors also found that PTS incidence is lower in patients treated with thrombolytics. However, several methodological flaws limit the conclusions with respect to reduction in PTS. Therefore, the authors conclude that although the lysis rate is greater for thrombolytic agents, they cannot be recommended routinely for DVT treatment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".