Controversies in the management of cancer-associated thrombosis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cancer associated thrombosis (CAT) is a frequent complication among cancer patients. It is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and psychological burden. Areas covered: Low-molecular-weight heparin monotherapy for the initial 6 months is considered the standard of care for the acute and long-term management of CAT. For patients at high risk of recurrent CAT (e.g. active cancer or still undergoing anticancer therapy) beyond the initial 6 months of treatment, continuation of anticoagulation therapy for secondary prevention is usually recommended. The management of anticoagulation therapy is more challenging in patients with cancer. Cancer patients are more likely to have recurrent events despite anticoagulation, thrombocytopenia due to their chemotherapy regimens or have incidental pulmonary embolism diagnosed on their staging imaging. Expert commentary: We will review expert consensuses and opinions in order to guide clinicians on how to tailor the management of CAT in these special circumstances.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it