MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2608507116 · doi:10.1111/ijlh.12665

Review of D‐dimer testing: Good, Bad, and Ugly

2017· review· en· W2608507116 on OpenAlexaff
Lori‐Ann Linkins, S. Takach Lapner

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Laboratory Hematology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsD-dimerPulmonary embolismMedicineDeep veinVenous thromboembolismThrombosisGold standard (test)Venous thrombosisIntensive care medicinePre- and post-test probabilityClinical PracticeDiagnostic testSurgeryRadiologyPediatricsFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

D-dimer assays are commonly used in clinical practice to exclude a diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. More recently, they have been also been used to guide patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) when faced with the decision to continue or stop anticoagulation after initial treatment is complete. D-dimer assays vary widely with respect to the antibody used, method of capture, instrumentation required, and calibration standard. These differences have an important influence on the operating characteristics of the assays. Consequently, the evidence available in the literature for one assay cannot simply be extrapolated to another. In this review, we will outline the general properties of D-dimer assays, discuss the concept of raising the D-dimer threshold used in diagnosis of VTE according to pretest probability and age, and provide clinical perspective on the role of D-dimer testing in the diagnosis and prognosis of VTE.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.731
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations286
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Laboratory HematologySame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207