MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Outcome of Saddle Pulmonary Embolism: A Nested Case-Control Study.

2010· article· en· W2979756100 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gauruv Bose, Esteban Gándara, Marc Carrier, Petra Erkens, Marc Rodger, Philip Wells

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary embolismSaddleCohortCardiologyInternal medicineRetrospective cohort studyThrombusSurgeryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 1102 Introduction: The management of saddle pulmonary embolism (PE) is controversial. Evidence about outcomes and management strategies is scarce in the literature due to the small prevalence of saddle PE. Historically it has been recommended that this group of patients should be treated aggressively. Purpose: To determine the prevalence and outcomes of patients diagnosed with saddle PE. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients with saddle PE diagnosed at the Ottawa Hospital between January 2007 and December 2008. Patients were included if a thrombus was present on computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) in the main pulmonary arteries spanning the bifurcation of the main pulmonary trunk. These cases were each matched with two non-saddle controls with proximal PE (thromboemboli in the main pulmonary arteries) based on age, sex, systolic blood pressure greater than or less than 90 mmHg, and the presence or absence of cancer. Demographics, prognostic factors, treatment, and outcomes were collected. Patients were followed over a 30 day period following the diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 32 (5%) of 724 patients with PE had a saddle event. Baseline characteristics are depicted in Table 1. Differences between the saddle case group and non-saddle control group include the presence of right ventricular dilation (59% of saddle cases vs. 22% of controls, p-value: 0.0007) and in the proportion of patients managed as outpatients (7% of saddle cases vs. 33% of controls, p-value: 0.02). At 30 days no differences were found in patients with saddle PE or proximal PE for all cause mortality (6% vs. 10%; OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.08–3.2), PE related mortality (0% vs. 6%; OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.01–6.1), major bleeding (3% vs. 5%; OR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.02–6.4), or recurrent venous thromboembolism (6% vs. 10%; OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.08–3.2). Conclusions: Patients with saddle PE do not have a worse 30-day prognosis than patients with proximal PE matched by age, sex, systolic blood pressure, and presence of cancer. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→French-language works237,207→