MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Accuracy and usefulness of a clinical prediction rule and D-dimer testing in excluding deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in cancer patients

2007· article· en· W2600624233 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Carrier, A. Lee, Shannon M. Bates, P.S. Wells

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancerDeep veinMalignancyD-dimerThrombosisPre- and post-test probabilityInternal medicinePopulationProspective cohort studySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

19522 Background: Cancer patients frequently present with thrombotic complications and rapid, accurate diagnostic testing would reduce morbidity and mortality. Although the combination of a low clinical probability using clinical prediction rules (e.g. Well’s Score) and a negative D-dimer result have proven to be safe and reliable in ruling out DVT in the general population, the accuracy of such a strategy is less certain in cancer patients. Because cancer patients often have alternative reasons for leg swelling and pain, and because malignancy and chemotherapy can render the D-dimer test positive in the absence of DVT, we hypothesize that the Well’s Score and D-dimer testing are potentially less accurate and less useful in excluding DVT in patients with active cancer. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 2 prospective studies to compare the diagnostic test characteristics of the Well’s Score and D-dimer testing between patients with and without cancer presenting with suspected DVT. Results: A total of 1630 patients were studied; 107 had cancer. DVT was confirmed in 39.3% of patients with and 13.7% of patients without cancer. In both patient groups, the proportions of patients with DVT were significantly different among the high-, moderate- and low-probability groups according to the Well’s score (P<0.001). However, significantly fewer cancer patients (19.6%) had a low-probability score compared to patients without cancer (47.5%) (P<0.001). Similarly, 36.4% of cancer vs. 60.4% of noncancer patients had a negative D-dimer result (P<0.001). In cancer patients, a low probability score alone had a sensitivity of 95.2% (95%CI 82.6%-99.2%) and a specificity of 29.2% (95% CI 18.9%-42.0%). In combination with D-dimer testing, the sensitivity improved to 100% (95%CI 31.0%-100%) but the specificity was reduced to 26.4% (95%CI 13.5%-44.7%). In contrast, the specificity in patients without cancer was preserved at 53.9% (95%CI 50.4%-57.3%). Conclusion: DVT can be ruled out in cancer patients with a low clinical probability of DVT and a negative D-dimer result. However, the low specificity of these tests excludes very few patients and thereby limits their clinical usefulness. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.257
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→French-language works237,207→