MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793071797 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-01-785956

How I treat the postthrombotic syndrome

2018· review· en· W2793071797 on OpenAlexafffund
Anat Rabinovich, Susan R. Kahn

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineDeep veinCompression stockingsThrombosisPost-thrombotic syndromeSurgeryThrombolysisIntensive care medicineInternal medicineMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) is a chronic complication of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) that imposes significant morbidity, reduces quality of life, and is costly. After DVT, 20% to 50% of patients will develop PTS, and up to 5% will develop severe PTS. The principal risk factors for PTS are anatomically extensive DVT, recurrent ipsilateral DVT, obesity, and older age. By preventing the initial DVT and DVT recurrence, primary and secondary prophylaxis of DVT will reduce occurrence of PTS. The effectiveness of elastic compression stockings (ECSs) for PTS prevention is controversial. Catheter-directed thrombolysis is not effective to prevent PTS overall but may prevent more severe forms of PTS and should be reserved for select patients with extensive thrombosis, recent symptoms onset, and low bleeding risk. For patients with established PTS, the cornerstone of management is ECS, exercise, and lifestyle modifications. Surgical or endovascular interventions may be considered in refractory cases. Because of a lack of effective therapies, new approaches to preventing and treating PTS are needed. This article uses a case-based approach to discuss risk factors for PTS after DVT, how to diagnose PTS, and available means to prevent and treat PTS, with a focus on new information in the field.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
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

Citations106
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207