MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The Effects of the Degree of Mobility Reduction and Prespecified Risk Factors on Venous Thromboembolism Rates in Acutely Ill Medical Patients in the EXCLAIM Study.

2007· article· en· W2593642777 on OpenAlexaff
Roger D. Yusen, Russell D. Hull, Sebastian Schellong, Victor F. Tapson, Manuel Monréal, Meyer‐Michel Samama, Alexander G.G. Turpie

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)PlaceboInternal medicinePulmonary embolismThrombosisDeep veinVenous thrombosisVenous thromboembolismSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction EXCLAIM showed a 44% reduction of the relative risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) with extended-duration enoxaparin prophylaxis compared with placebo, following standard-duration prophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients (2.8% vs 4.9%; RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.39–0.80; p=0.001). We retrospectively assessed the effects of degree of reduced mobility and prespecified risk factors on the incidence of VTE in EXCLAIM. Methods EXCLAIM eligibility required a recent (≤3 days) reduction in mobility due to acute medical illness, an anticipated level 1 (total bed rest/sedentary; no bathroom privileges) or level 2 (level 1 with bathroom privileges) decreased mobility, and age ≥40 years. During the latter part of the study, a protocol amendment required patients with level 2 mobility to have ≥1 of 3 additional prespecified risk factors (history of cancer, history of VTE, age >75 years). Enrolled patients received enoxaparin 40mg SC od for 10±4 days. Randomized patients received double-blind therapy (enoxaparin 40mg SC od or placebo) for 28±4 additional days. Patients were screened for deep vein thrombosis with bilateral proximal lower extremity compression ultrasound after randomized therapy. A blinded committee adjudicated cases of suspected VTE and major bleeding. Results Of patients evaluable for VTE (pre- and post-amendment; n=4995), 42% had level 1 mobility. 43% with level 2 mobility met the amended eligibility criteria. The incidence of VTE was 3.2%. Treatment effects on VTE incidence and major bleeding rates were consistent within mobility groups, regardless of the presence of prespecified risk factors (Table). In patients with level 1 mobility, those with ≥1 prespecified risk factors had a higher VTE incidence than those without (4.8% vs 2.6%; p=0.007). In patients with level 2 mobility, those with ≥1 risk factors had a higher VTE incidence than those without (4.6% vs 1.9%; p<0.0001). Table: Effect of level of reduced mobility and prespecified risk factors on incidence of VTE and major bleeding in patients receiving extended-duration prophylaxis or placebo, following standard-duration prophylaxis Level of mobility and number of prespecified risk factors Extended-duration enoxaparin Extended-duration placebo p-value for interaction* *Non-significant p-value denotes consistent treatment effect among subgroups; n=5963 for assessment of bleeding VTE (%) Level 1 - no risk factors 2.1 3.0 0.36 Level + ≥1 risk factor 2.7 6.8 Level 2 - no risk factors 1.9 2.0 Level 2 + ≥1 risk factor 3.5 5.6 Major bleeding (%) Level 1 - no risk factors 0.4 0.0 1.00 Level 1 + ≥1 risk factor 0.6 0.0 Level 2 - no risk factors 0.8 0.4 Level 2 + ≥1 risk factor 0.8 0.4 Conclusion After acutely ill medical patients with reduced mobility received standard-duration VTE prophylaxis, the presence of prespecified risk factors was associated with an increased incidence of VTE, independent of the level of reduced mobility. The treatment effects of extended-duration prophylaxis with enoxaparin compared with placebo were consistent among subgroups.

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)0.005
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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