MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2548198175 · doi:10.1182/blood.v112.11.403.403

Trousseau’s Syndrome Revisited: Should We Screen Extensively for Malignancy in Patients with Venous Thromboembolism? a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2008· review· en· W2548198175 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Carrier, Grégoire Le Gal, Philip Wells, Dean Fergusson, Tim Ramsay, Marc Rodger

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMalignancyMeta-analysisMEDLINEInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Identifying previously undiagnosed malignancy in patients with newly diagnosed venous thromboembolism (VTE) is important. Malignancy screening can potentially diagnose more cancers and at earlier stage, thereby preventing malignancy associated morbidity and perhaps mortality. Purpose: To summarize the period prevalence of previously undiagnosed malignancy at baseline (within 1 month of VTE diagnosis), 6 and 12 months following VTE. To quantify the additional value of an “extensive” malignancy screening strategy at baseline compared to a more “limited” screen (history, physical exam and simple widely available tests) at baseline. Data Source: A systematic literature search strategy was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials and all EBM Reviews. Study Selection: We selected 36 studies that reported the prevalence of undiagnosed malignancies at baseline, at 6 and 12 months. Fourteen articles and one abstract also met inclusion criteria for the assessment of “extensive” versus “limited” malignancy screening. Data extraction: Two reviewers independently extracted data onto standardized forms. Data Synthesis: The period prevalence of previously undiagnosed malignancy in patients with unprovoked VTE is 6.1% (95% confidence intervals (CI): 5.0 to 7.1) at baseline and 10.0% (95% CI: 8.6 to 11.3) from baseline to 12 months. An “extensive” malignancy screening strategy using computed tomography of the abdomen/pelvis significantly increases the proportion of previously undiagnosed malignancy detected from 49.4% (95% CI: 40.2 to 58.5) (limited screening alone) to 69.7% (95% CI: 61.1 to 77.8) in patients with unprovoked VTE. Limitations: Unable to determine complication rates, cost-effectiveness and difference in morbidity and mortality associated with “extensive” screening strategies. Conclusion: Previously undiagnosed malignancies are frequent in patients with unprovoked VTE. Malignancy screening using an “extensive” screening strategy detects more malignancies compared to a limited screening strategy. Computed tomography of the abdomen/pelvis should be considered in the diagnostic work up of previously undiagnosed malignancy in patients with unprovoked VTE.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.033
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→French-language works237,207→