MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Trajectories of Inflammation Markers after Acute DVT and Their Association with the Postthrombotic Syndrome

2014· article· en· W2980129669 on OpenAlexaff
Anat Rabinovich, Jacqueline M. Cohen, Mary Cushman, Susan R. Kahn

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBody mass indexPost-thrombotic syndromeInternal medicineBiomarkerConfoundingConfidence intervalPoisson regressionC-reactive proteinVenous thrombosisSurgeryThrombosisInflammationPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: The postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) is the most common chronic complication of deep venous thrombosis (DVT). Inflammation markers can predict PTS when measured at discrete time points after DVT; however, this approach does not recognize patterns of change over time. Objective: To describe change of inflammation marker levels after acute proximal DVT and assess the association of individual biomarker trajectories with risk of PTS. Methods: The BioSOX is a substudy of the SOX Trial. Patients with first, symptomatic, proximal DVT were followed for 24 months. The study end point, PTS, was diagnosed starting from 6 months post DVT using the Villalta scale. During the SOX trial we collected blood samples from participants at baseline, 1 and 6 months, and measured concentrations of C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin (IL)-6, IL-10 and intercellular adhesion molecule (ICAM)-1 using validated established methods. We used group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM) to identify biomarker level trajectories from the time of acute DVT up to six months post DVT and assign patients to trajectory groups. Chi-square and ANOVA tests were used to investigate the association of clinical and demographic characteristics and trajectory group assignment. Modified Poisson regression models were used to estimate risk ratios (RR) for PTS according to trajectory group. Models were adjusted for predefined covariates (age, sex, body mass index (BMI) and extent of DVT) and data driven confounders found to be significantly associated with trajectory group. Results: Of 703 patients, 327 developed PTS. Figure 1 depicts the best trajectory models for each of the 4 biomarkers. For both ICAM-1 and IL-10, the best model was a 3-group model with high, intermediate and low biomarker level trajectories. For both IL-6 and CRP, the best model was comprised of 4 groups, which consisted of the highest group (group 3) having a rapidly declining profile to an intermediate level by the first month after DVT, and a second high group (group 4) having levels that remained high for the entire sampling time. Clinical and demographic variables most closely associated with trajectory group assignment were age, BMI, infectious or inflammatory conditions in the month prior to DVT, smoking, cancer related DVT and anatomical extent of DVT. For ICAM-1 there was a significant association of trajectory group assignment and risk of PTS (Table 1). Adjusted RR for trajectory group 2 vs. group 3 was 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.67 – 0.93). There were no associations of the other biomarker trajectory groups with PTS risk. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first study to use trajectory analyses to describe temporal patterns of change in inflammation marker levels after acute DVT and relate these to risk of PTS. Results suggest that patients demonstrate distinct patterns of change in biomarker levels over the first six months after acute DVT. Persistently high ICAM-1 levels in the first six months after DVT were associated with an increased risk of PTS. Verification of these results is needed by other studies. Figure 1. Group based trajectory models for biomarker trajectories after acute DVT. Figure 1. Group based trajectory models for biomarker trajectories after acute DVT. Table 1: Association between biomarker trajectory group and PTS Trajectory group* Crude RR (95% CI) Adjusted† RR (95%CI) ICAM-1 1 vs. 3 0.60 (0.33-1.10) 0.67 (0.36-1.24) 2 vs. 3 0.74 (0.63-0.87) 0.79 (0.67-0.93) IL-10 1 vs. 3 1.01 (0.60-2.02) 1.19 (0.66-2.16) 2 vs. 3 1.08 (0.79-1.46) 1.13 (0.83-1.53) CRP 1 vs. 4 0.80 (0.60-1.04) 0.95 (0.70-1.28) 2 vs. 4 0.91 (0.73-1.13) 1.00 (0.80-1.25) 3 vs. 4 0.79 (0.61-1.01) 0.89 (0.68-1.16) IL-6 1 vs. 4 0.84 (0.62-1.15) 1.01 (0.73-1.40) 2 vs. 4 1.01 (0.76-1.35) 1.02 (0.76-1.36) 3 vs. 4 0.90 (0.62-1.32) 0.96 (0.65-1.41) ICAM-1, intercellular adhesion molecule1; IL-10, Interleukin 10; CRP, C-reactiveprotein; IL-6, Interleukin 6; RR, risk ratio. *See Figure 1 for graphical depiction of trajectory group patterns over time †Adjustment variables: ICAM-1: age, sex, BMI, extent of DVT, smoking status and type of DVT IL-6 and IL-10: age, sex, BMI, extent of DVT, infection or inflammatory condition in the month prior to DVT, smoking status and type of DVT CRP: age, sex, BMI, extent of DVT, infection or inflammatory condition in the month prior to DVT and type of DVT. 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)0.006
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.188 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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