MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767456972 · doi:10.1097/eja.0000000000000708

European guidelines on perioperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis

2017· article· en· W2767456972 on OpenAlexaff
Aamer Ahmed, Andreas Koster, Marcus D. Lancé, David Faraoni

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Anaesthesiology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativeIntermittent pneumatic compressionContext (archaeology)ComplicationSurgerySepsisFresh frozen plasmaVenous thromboembolismMechanical ventilationPopulationAnesthesiaInternal medicineThrombosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

: None of the predictive models for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis have been designed for and validated in patients undergoing cardiothoracic and vascular surgery. The presence of one or more risk factors [age over 70 years old, transfusion of more than 4 U of red blood cells/fresh frozen plasma/cryoprecipitate, mechanical ventilation lasting more than 24 h, postoperative complication (e.g. acute kidney injury, infection/sepsis, neurological complication)] should place the cardiac population at high risk for VTE. In this context, we suggest the use of pharmacological prophylaxis as soon as satisfactory haemostasis has been achieved, in addition to intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) (Grade 2C). In patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, particularly when an open surgical approach is used, the risk for VTE is high and the bleeding risk is high. In this context, we suggest the use of pharmacological prophylaxis as soon as satisfactory haemostasis is achieved (Grade 2C). Patients undergoing thoracic surgery in the absence of cancer could be considered at low risk for VTE. Patients undergoing thoracic surgery with a diagnosis of primary or metastatic cancer should be considered at high risk for VTE. In low-risk patients, we suggest the use of mechanical prophylaxis using IPC (Grade 2C). In high-risk patients, we suggest the use of pharmacological prophylaxis in addition to IPC (Grade 2B).

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.006

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations48
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of AnaesthesiologySame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207