Early prophylactic anticoagulation for portal vein system thrombosis after splenectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early prophylactic anticoagulation for the prevention of portal vein system thrombosis (PVST) after splenectomy. A systematic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, Springer and Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify studies comparing the outcomes in patients receiving or not receiving regular prophylactic anticoagulation after splenectomy. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Jadad Score and the Newcastle‑Ottawa Scale. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the χ2 and I2 tests. The parameters that were analyzed included the incidence of PVST and anticoagulation‑associated complications. A total of seven studies qualified for the review, involving 383 and 283 patients receiving or not receiving regular prophylactic anticoagulation, respectively. The incidence of PVST was significantly reduced with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.31 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.21‑0.46; P<0.00001] in the regular prophylactic anticoagulation group compared with the control group. No difference in the incidence of anticoagulation‑associated complications was identified between the two groups (OR=0.60, 95% CI, 0.23‑1.56; P=0.30). Early prophylactic anticoagulation was associated with a reduced incidence of PVST, although it was not associated with the incidence of anticoagulation‑associated complications. These results indicate that prophylactic anticoagulation could be safely administered after splenectomy, even to cirrhotic 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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".