Factors Associated With Adverse Outcomes in Outpatients Presenting With Pulmonary Embolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data from clinical trials suggest that short-term mortality in outpatients presenting with pulmonary embolism (PE) is low and that outpatient therapy may be appropriate. However, subjects enrolled in these studies may not be representative of patients seen in the community setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: The medical records of residents from Worcester, Mass, with International Classification of Disease, Ninth Edition, codes consistent with potential venous thromboembolism during 1999, 2001, and 2003 were independently validated and reviewed by trained abstractors. A total of 305 patients presented with PE from the outpatient setting. The rates of recurrent PE, major bleeding, mortality, or occurrence of any 1 of these end points at 90 days were 1.4%, 9.5%, 11.1%, and 20.1%, respectively. Patients with a history of congestive heart failure, recent intensive care unit discharge, cancer, severe infection, systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg, and male sex were at increased risk for the composite end point. CONCLUSIONS: In the present population-based study, morbidity and mortality after outpatient PE were much higher than what was observed in clinical studies. Our findings raise questions about broad-based outpatient treatment of PE in the community setting. In our study, comorbid conditions and recent illness were important determinants of adverse outcomes, suggesting that these variables should be carefully considered before embarking on outpatient therapy of PE.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".