Safety of Withholding Heparin in Pregnant Women with a History of Venous Thromboembolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women with a history of venous thromboembolism may be at increased risk for venous thromboembolic events during pregnancy. In these women, the decision to give or withhold heparin in the antepartum period is controversial, because accurate estimates of the frequency of recurrent thromboembolic events if antepartum heparin is withheld are not available. METHODS: We prospectively studied 125 pregnant women with a single previous episode of venous thromboembolism. Antepartum heparin was withheld, but anticoagulant therapy was given for four to six weeks post partum. Our primary objective was to determine the rate of antepartum recurrence of venous thromboembolism. Laboratory studies were performed to identify thrombophilia in 95 women. RESULTS: Three of the 125 women (2.4 percent) had an antepartum recurrence of venous thromboembolism (95 percent confidence interval, 0.2 to 6.9 percent). There were no recurrences in the 44 women who had no evidence of thrombophilia and who also had a previous episode of thrombosis that was associated with a temporary risk factor. Among the 51 women with abnormal laboratory results or a previous episode of idiopathic thrombosis, or both, 3 (5.9 percent) had an antepartum recurrence of venous thromboembolism (95 percent confidence interval, 1.2 to 16.2 percent). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of recurrent antepartum venous thromboembolism in women with a history of venous thromboembolism is low, and therefore routine antepartum prophylaxis with heparin is not warranted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".