MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Varying D-Dimer Cutpoints According to Clinical Pretest Probability Compared with a Uniform D-Dimer Cutpoint for Diagnosis of Deep Vein Thrombosis

2010· article· en· W2592713142 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lori Ann Linkins, Shannon M. Bates, Susan R. Kahn, Eddy Lang, Jim A. Julian, Jeffrey S. Ginsberg, Jim Douketis, Sam Schulman, Clive Kearon

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesHamilton General HospitalUniversity of CalgaryJewish General HospitalMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsD-dimerMedicineDeep veinPre- and post-test probabilityRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineClinical trialThrombosisSurgeryNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 5116 Background: D-dimer assays are currently used as a one-size-fits-all diagnostic test for DVT where the same cutpoint is used to define a positive result for all patients. This approach ignores the relationship between the diagnostic properties of the assay and the pretest probability of the disease. Objective: We conducted a randomized, allocation concealed, controlled, assessor-blinded trial to compare the safety and efficiency of two diagnostic strategies for D-dimer testing for first acute DVT of the lower limb: Selective use of D-dimer testing, using different D-dimer cutpoint levels according to clinical pretest probability (C-PTP) and the traditional Uniform approach. Method: 1723 consecutive eligible inpatients and outpatients at 5 clinical centres (4 in Ontario, 1 in Montreal) had their C-PTP assessed using the Wells' Score and were randomized to either: Uniform D-dimer testing, in which all patients had a D-dimer test and a level of <0.5 μ g fibrinogen equivalent units (FEU)/mL was classified as negative (the control group); or Selective D-dimer testing, in which D-dimer testing was (a) performed in patients with Low and Moderate C-PTP only, (patients with a High C-PTP had an ultrasound, but no D-dimer testing), and (b) was classified as negative if the D-dimer level was <0.5 μ g FEU/mL with Moderate C-PTP or <1.0 μ g FEU/mL with Low C-PTP (the experimental group). The D-dimer assays used in this study were the MDA D-Dimer (bioMerieux, Inc and Trinity Biotech) and STA Liatest D-Dimer(Diagnostica Stago). All patients with a positive D-dimer had an ultrasound of their leg. Symptomatic venous thromboembolic events (VTE) during 3 months of follow-up were objectively confirmed and independently adjudicated. Results: The incidence of VTE during 3 months of follow-up in patients who were not diagnosed with DVT at initial presentation was 1.1% (9/811) with Uniform testing, and 1.1% (9/814) with Selective testing (difference 0.004%, 95% CI:-1.122, 1.111). The incidence of VTE during 3 months of follow-up in patients in the Low C-PTP Select arm (D-dimer cutpoint 1.0 μ g FEU/mL) was 0% (0/356), and in the Low C-PTP Uniform arm (D-dimer cutpoint 0.5 μ g FEU/mL), it was 0.3% (1/336). Conclusion: This is the first randomized controlled clinical trial to show that Selective use of D-dimer testing, with a higher D-dimer cutpoint in patients with Low C-PTP, is safe and potentially more efficient than current practice. Funded by the Heart & Stroke Foundation of Ontario. Disclosures: Linkins: Trinity Biotech: in-kind donation of D-dimer kits; BioMerieux: in-kind donation of D-dimer kits; Stago Diagnostica: in-kind donation of D-dimer kits. Bates:bioMerieux: in-kind donation of D-dimer kits; Trinity Biotech: Consultancy, in-kind donation of D-dimer kits. Kearon:BioMerieux: in-kind donation of D-dimer kits; Trinity Biotech: in-kind donation of D-dimer kits; Stago Diagnostica: in-kind donation of D-dimer kits.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designRandomized trial
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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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