Upper Extremity DVT versus Lower Extremity DVT: Perspectives from the GARFIELD-VTE Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) is less common than lower extremity DVT (LEDVT) and consequently less well characterized. This study compared clinical characteristics and 1-year outcomes between 438 UEDVT patients and 7,602 LEDVT patients recruited in the GARFIELD-VTE registry. UEDVT patients were significantly more likely to have a central venous catheter than those with LEDVT (11.5% vs. 0.5%; p < 0.0001), and had a higher rate of active cancer (16.2%) or recent hospitalization (19.4%) compared with LEDVT patients (8.7% and 11.2%, respectively). Nearly all patients with UEDVT and LEDVT were initiated on anticoagulant therapy, which was a direct oral anticoagulant in one-third individuals in both groups. At 3, 6, and 12 months, the proportion of UEDVT and LEDVT patients who were receiving anticoagulant therapy was 82.6 and 87.4%, 66.0 and 72.6%, and 45.7 and 54.6%, respectively. In the UEDVT and LEDVT groups, VTE recurrence rate was 4.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4–6.7) and 5.5 (95% CI, 4.9–6.1) per 100 person-years, respectively; major bleed was noted in 1.3 (95% CI, 0.6–3.2) and 1.6 (95% CI, 1.3–1.9) per 100 person-years and all-cause mortality in 9.7 (95% CI, 7.1–13.4) and 6.7 (95% CI, 6.1–7.3) per 100 person-years, respectively. Hence, risk of recurrence was similar in the two groups whereas all-cause mortality was significantly higher in the UEDVT group than the LEDVT group (p = 0.0338). This latter finding was likely due to the high prevalence of cancer in the UEDVT group.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.006 | 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".