MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2589740173 · doi:10.1182/blood.v106.11.281.281

VENUS - A Study To Validate Centrally Adjudicated Venous Ultrasound Against Venography after Major Orthopaedic Surgery.

2005· article· en· W2589740173 on OpenAlexaff
Sebastian Schellong, Jan Beyer, Kai Halbritter, Benjamin Schmidt, Alexander G.G. Turpie, Bengt I. Eriksson, Frank Misselwitz, Peter Kälebo

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsHamilton General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVenographyMedicineGold standard (test)Deep veinThrombosisRadiologyVenous thrombosisSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Mandatory, bilateral, centrally adjudicated venography is currently required to assess the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in confirmatory trials of new antithrombotic agents. Non-invasive and less cumbersome methods would be welcomed by both patients and investigators. Centrally adjudicated complete compression ultrasound (CCUS) of all leg veins could become an alternative to venography. Despite the fact that no formal validation of venography has ever been performed, CCUS will have to be externally validated against this ’gold standard’ to gain general acceptance and regulatory approval. A substudy of two recent phase IIb trials of a novel, oral anticoagulant for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing elective hip or knee arthroplasty was undertaken to validate CCUS against venography. The studies had similar designs and methodology, and were designed to allow the pooling of data. Mandatory bilateral venography was performed 7±2 days after surgery; CCUS was performed later the same day, with the sonographers blinded to the venography result. All sonographers were required to have completed a training course, and to have obtained personal certification for the standardized examination and documentation procedure. Venograms and CCUS videos were adjudicated centrally by two independent readers at separate locations; discrepancies were resolved by consensus reading. From the 1347 patients participating in the two trials, 870 matching pairs of evaluable venograms and CCUS videos were obtained. Observed prevalences of any DVT, including muscle vein thrombosis, were 19.1% with venography, and 13.0% with CCUS. Sensitivity and specificity values [with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI)] for detecting DVT with CCUS are shown in the table. Although false positives did not severely impair specificity, the small number of true positives detected by CCUS resulted in remarkably low sensitivity, in particular for proximal DVT. Based on these external validation figures, centrally adjudicated CCUS is not a viable technique to replace venography for the screening of DVT early after major orthopaedic surgery in confirmatory trials of novel antithrombotic agents. DVT Sensitivity [% (95% CI)] Specificity [% (95% CI)] Any 27.4 (21.2, 33.6) 95.8 (94.8, 96.8) Proximal 13.0 (−0.7, 26.8) 99.2 (98.9, 99.7) Distal 25.9 (19.7, 32.1) 96.2 (95.3, 97.2)

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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