MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2590720970 · doi:10.1182/blood.v120.21.394.394

Predicting Venous Thromboembolism Recurrence Risk in Patients with Cancer: A Validation Study

2012· article· en· W2590720970 on OpenAlexaffabout
Martha Louzada, Gauruv Bose, Andrew Cheung, Benjamin Chin‐Yee, Simon T. Wells, Philip S. Wells

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa HospitalLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary embolismThrombosisCancerClinical prediction ruleLow molecular weight heparinVenous thrombosisWarfarinMalignancyVenous thromboembolismPopulationInternal medicineRetrospective cohort studySurgeryCohort

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 394 Background: Long-term low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is the current standard for treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients. Whether treatment strategies should vary according to individual risk of VTE recurrence remains unknown. We have derived a clinical prediction rule that stratifies VTE recurrence risk in patients with cancer-associated VTE. The derivation model includes 4 independent predictors (sex, primary tumor site, stage and prior VTE). The score sum ranges between −3 and +3 points. Patients with a score ≤ 0 had low risk (≤4.5%) for recurrence and patients with a score above 1 had a high risk (≥ 19%) for VTE recurrence. Subsequently, we applied and validated the rule in an independent set of 819 patients from 2 randomized controlled trials comparing LMWH to warfarin for VTE treatment in cancer patients. In the current study we aim to externally validate our clinical prediction rule with an independent population of patients with cancer-associated VTE followed at the Thrombosis clinics of two tertiary Canadian centres. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with cancer and VTE diagnosed and/or followed at the Thrombosis Clinic of the Victoria Hospital (London, Canada) from January 2006 to December 2010; and the Thrombosis Unit of the Ottawa Hospital (Ottawa, Canada) from January 2009 to December 2011. We included data from adult patients with active malignancy and objectively diagnosed acute pulmonary embolism (PE) or deep venous thrombosis (DVT) of the lower extremity (above knee), upper extremity and neck veins, or unusual site thrombosis. The primary outcome measure was VTE recurrence during the first six months of anticoagulation. Results: 353 patients fulfilled our inclusion criteria and were included in the study. There were 149 males, and the overall population had a median age of 64 years (range: 18 – 95). One hundred and twenty-three patients had lower extremity DVT, 93 had PE and 57 had both. The remaining 80 patients had either upper extremity/neck DVT (n = 55) or unusual site thrombosis (n = 25). 77 patients had a prior history of VTE. The most common primary tumour site was gastrointestinal, followed by the lung. Of the 304 patients with solid tumours, 230 (75.7%%) had TNM greater than I. Two hundred and ninety-three (83.0%) patients were treated with longterm low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) only and 60 (17.0%) with warfarin (VKA). VTE recurrence occurred in 44 of 353 patients (12.4%). When we evaluated VTE recurrence risk per site, there was no significant difference: London 13 of 90 and Ottawa 31 of 263 [RR=1.23 (95%CI= 0.671 – 2.237; p=0. 507)]. In addition, there was no significant benefit with the use of LMWH (37 of 293) over VKA (7 of 60) in the risk of recurrence [RR=0.92 (95%CI= 0.433 – 1.973; p= 0.8379)]. When we applied our clinical prediction rule (Table 1) in the entire study population, recurrent VTE occurred in 12 of 204 (5.8%) patients stratified as low risk probability and in 32 of 149 (21.4%) patients stratified as high risk probability (Table 2). Conclusions: Our prediction rule has been adequately validated to now be used in prospective trials of treatment. Future trials evaluating novel treatment strategies for high risk patients are warranted. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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