Outpatient treatment of patients with deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There have been a large number of randomized trials comparing standard unfractionated intravenous heparin with low-molecular-weight heparin for the treatment of deep-vein thrombosis, but only two of these have looked at outpatient therapy. There have been only two randomized trials including patients with symptomatic pulmonary embolism, and neither of these provided outpatient therapy. Postmortem and clinical studies have shown a strong association between pulmonary embolism and the presence of venous thrombosis in the lower limbs. Based on similar rates of venous thromboembolic recurrence and death, these studies suggest that initial treatment should be the same for deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. The feasibility of providing outpatient care to many patients seeking treatment for deep-vein thrombosis or acute pulmonary embolism at certain tertiary care hospitals has become evident, but the data suggest that the proportion of eligible patients is institution dependent and may vary from 18% to 91%. In the author's institution, approximately 50% of patients with pulmonary embolism could be treated as outpatients, but there have been no other reports on outpatient therapy for patients with pulmonary embolism. If patients with pulmonary embolism meet criteria demonstrated to result in a higher risk of death, it is, of course, reasonable to not treat such patients on an outpatient basis. Low-molecular-weight heparin followed by oral anticoagulant therapy provides adequate therapy in most patients with deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, and many patients can be treated as outpatients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".