MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Incidence and Management of Isolated Subsegmental Pulmonary Embolism.

2009· article· en· W2592188002 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yihao Shen, Philip S. Wells, Carole Dennie, Marc Carrier

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary embolismPulmonary angiographyIncidence (geometry)RadiologyRetrospective cohort studySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 2989 Poster Board II-965 Introduction: The use of computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) has improved the visualization of subsegmental pulmonary arteries. However, the clinical significance of subsegmental PE is unclear. In the PIOPED Study, PE limited to subsegmental pulmonary arteries was most prevalent among patients with low-probability ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) scans. Patients with non-diagnostic (low or intermediate) V/Q scans can be safely managed without anticoagulation. The incidence and clinical management of subsegmental PE remains uncertain. Objective: To evaluate the incidence and clinical management of subsegmental PE in patients with suspected acute PE. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients with suspected acute PE undergoing CTPA at the Ottawa Hospital from Jan 1, 2007 to Dec 31, 2008. Subsegmental PE was defined as one or more pulmonary artery filling defects located in the subsegmental level, with no filling defects visualized at more proximal pulmonary artery levels. All patients were followed for a minimum of 6 months after the index PE. Results: A total of 78 (10.4%, 95% CI: 8.4 to 12.8%) cases of subsegmental PE were identified out of 748 cases of PE diagnosed by CTPA. Forty-three (77%) of these had a single isolated subsegmental filling defect. Data could be extracted in 56 (72%) of the 78 cases. Among these 56 patients, 18 (32%) had unprovoked PE. Further investigations were performed in 50 patients (Ultrasonography (U/S) of legs (n=38), U/S and V/Q scan (n=11) or V/Q scan alone (n=1)). Deep vein thrombosis was detected in 12 patients and two patients had a high probability V/Q scan. Forty-eight (86%) patients were anticoagulated. All patients with concurrent DVT or high probability V/Q scan were started on anticoagulation therapy. Two patients experienced a major bleeding episode after anticoagulation. Out of the 8 patients left untreated, there were no recurrent VTE. Conclusion: Isolated subsegmental PE represents approximately 10% of all acute PE diagnosed by CTPA. Patients with subsegmental PE diagnosed on CTPA are more commonly receiving anticoagulation than not. Further studies are needed to establish the risk benefit ratio of anticoagulation therapy in patients with subsegmental PE diagnosed on CTPA. 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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