MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Increased Incidence of Venous Thromboembolism Following Allogeneic Compared with Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation.

2007· article· en· W2578015983 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Gonsalves, Marc Carrier, Philip Wells, Sheryl McDiarmid, Lothar Huebsch, David Allan

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Sclerosis and Related Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTransplantationPulmonary embolismHematopoietic stem cell transplantationIncidence (geometry)Cumulative incidenceThrombosisSurgeryDeep veinRetrospective cohort studyCentral venous catheterInternal medicineCatheter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is not well described, particularly with the emerging trend towards increased ambulatory care in the transplant setting. HSCT involves high dose chemotherapy and/or radiation and is often associated with periods of immobilization. In addition, vascular damage and inflammation are common following transplantation and may further increase the risk of VTE. We sought to quantify the incidence of VTE in both allogeneic and autologous HSCT recipients and characterize the factors influencing these events. Methods: A retrospective analysis involving 589 patients (382 autologous, 207 allogeneic recipients undergoing transplantation between 2000–2005) was performed in order to identify the incidence of symptomatic acute deep proximal vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) in HSCT recipients. Only patients who provided signed informed consent regarding the utilization of their medical information for research purposes were included. All diagnostic imaging reports of CT pulmonary angiography, ventilation / perfusion (VQ) scanning and duplex ultrasound of the upper and lower extremities performed within the first year after HSCT were reviewed. A diagnosis of VTE was confirmed by reviewing the clinical record and verifying a moderate to high pre-test probability according to the Wells’ criteria. Non-catheter related events were the designated primary outcome. Symptomatic catheter-related events (superficial and deep veins) were secondary outcomes. Statistical analysis included comparison of mean values using Student’s t test and comparison of proportions using the chi squared analysis. Results: A total of 7 patients developed VTE following HSCT unrelated to central venous catheters (4 PE and 3 DVT) for an incidence of 1.2%. A total of 5 patients had VTE events in the allogeneic group (2.4%) and 2 autologous recipients suffered VTE events (0.52%, p=0.043). An increased number of PEs occurred in the allogeneic group compared with autologous recipients (4 vs 0, p=0.006). Symptomatic catheter-related thrombosis (superficial and deep venous occlusion combined) was not different between the allogeneic and autologous groups (7.25% vs. 5.50%, p= 0.4). Three allogeneic recipients (60%) had GVHD at the time of VTE diagnosis and only 1 patient had relapsing disease (20%) while both patients in the autologous cohort (100%) had progression of their disease at the time of VTE diagnosis. All VTE events unrelated to central venous catheters occurred after hematopoietic engraftment with a trend towards earlier occurrence in the allogeneic setting compared to autologous recipients (mean 153 days vs. 312 days, respectively, p=0.080). The mean platelet count at the time of VTE was 121 (50–174). Conclusion: HSCT patients have a high incidence of non-catheter related VTE compared to historical reports of the general and cancer populations. Allogeneic recipients have an increased risk of VTE and of PE in comparison to autologous transplant patients. VTE occurred exclusively in HSCT patients after hematopoietic recovery. Perhaps thrombocytopenia and the emphasis on ambulatory patient status in our program were protective against the development of VTE. Our study supports the notion that GVHD may contribute to the development of VTE in allogeneic transplant recipients. Moreover, progression of the underlying malignancy may be a dominant risk factor in the development of VTE in autologous recipients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicSystemic Sclerosis and Related Diseases→French-language works237,207→