Postpartum management of women at increased risk of thrombosis--results of a Canadian pilot survey.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine current practice patterns in the postpartum management of women at increased risk of thrombosis. METHODS: Physicians affiliated with the University of Toronto departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rheumatology, Hematology, and Obstetric Medicine who provide care to pregnant women were mailed a questionnaire that presented 6 clinical scenarios involving postpartum management of a woman at risk for thrombosis, with (1) recurrent pregnancy loss and antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS) treated with aspirin (ASA) in the pregnancy; (2) 2 pregnancy losses and a low titer antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) treated with ASA and low molecular weight (LMW) heparin with placental insufficiency; (3) known APS and pregnancy loss treated with LMW heparin and delivered by cesarean section; (4) a previous 17 week fetal death and aPL; (5) a previous deep vein thrombosis while on oral contraception; and (6) systemic lupus erythematosus and secondary APS with a history of a stillbirth. Physicians were asked whether they would recommend postpartum coagulation, and if so to choose from a list of treatment options. RESULTS: Of the 71 questionnaires mailed, 44 were returned (62%). Three physicians replied that their practices do not include patients similar to those presented in the cases and chose not to respond to the clinical scenarios. Percentages of responders recommending treatment in each scenario were 29% for Case 1, 49% for Case 2, 63% for Case 3, 41% for Case 4, 51% for Case 5, and 58% for Case 6. Recommendation for treatment differed among medical specialties, with rheumatologists being less likely to treat in all cases. Prophylactic heparin was selected as the treatment of choice most frequently by those recommending anticoagulation 70% (84/120). CONCLUSION: Postpartum treatment recommendations for women at increased risk of thrombosis are variable across different practitioner specializations demonstrating clinical equipoise regarding therapy. More definitive research is needed and broader study of physicians involved in the care of these patients is planned to more accurately describe and understand the decision to treat these patients.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".