Antithrombotic therapy and platelet transfusions in hematologic malignancy patients presenting chemotherapy‐induced thrombocytopenia: a French survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with hematologic malignancies are at high risk for both thrombosis and bleeding. During the prolonged periods of thrombocytopenia experienced by patients who are receiving intensive chemotherapy, clinicians often hesitate to prescribe any protection against thrombosis. In case of anticoagulant prescription, it is the prescribers' responsibility to weigh risks and benefits for each patient. Current guidelines exist but do not take into account types of thrombosis, patients' comorbidities, or previous bleeding events. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We proposed to gain insight into hematologists' beliefs about antithrombotic prescription in hematologic malignancy patients, to design future clinical trials. Therefore, we conducted a survey in France to evaluate the practices among a panel of hematologists. RESULTS: /L. None of the respondents decided to renounce treatment, nor to discontinue it because of thrombocytopenia, except in distal venous thrombosis or superficial vein thrombosis. One-fifth of clinicians proposed the insertion of a vena cava filter. CONCLUSION: As observed in the United States and Canada, we noticed discrepancies between recommendations and current practices in France. This highlights the urgent need to conduct studies to evaluate both efficacy and safety of antithrombotics in patients with hematologic cancer and thrombocytopenia.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".