Systematic review and meta‐analysis of venous thromboembolism in otolaryngology–head and neck surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to present our systematic review and meta-analysis of the data on venous thromboembolism (VTE; deep venous thrombosis [DVT] and/or pulmonary embolism [PE]) in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery (OHNS). METHODS: PubMed and Scopus databases were searched for studies reporting VTE in OHNS. Incidence of VTE and bleeding is reported and meta-analyzed overall and for chemoprophylaxis and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC)/free flap subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 23 studies were included with a total of 618,264 patients. Incidence of VTE was 0.4%. The incidence of bleeding complications was 0.9%. The addition of chemoprophylaxis did not result in a decreased VTE incidence (odds ratio [OR], 0.86), but produced an increased risk of bleeding (OR, 3.78). The overall OR for VTE in SCC/free flap cases was 6.28. CONCLUSION: Chemoprophylaxis may not be necessary in the OHNS non-SCC or free flap patient population and must be balanced against an increased risk of bleeding. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 39: 1249-1258, 2017.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".