MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Incidence of Post-Thrombotic Syndrome Following Asymptomatic Thrombosis in Survivors of Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.

2007· article· en· W2982311108 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stefan Kuhle, Maria Spavour, Patricia Massicotte, Irene Cherrick, David Dix, Donald H. Mahoney, Sunil Desai, Lesley Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioStollery Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsymptomaticPediatricsCohortPost-thrombotic syndromeCumulative incidenceIncidence (geometry)ThrombosisInternal medicineSurgeryVenous thrombosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: Asymptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT) are well-known complications of treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in children. However, the clinical significance of radiographically detected, asymptomatic DVT is unclear and controversial, as there are no studies on long-term outcome of asymptomatic DVT in children available. There are two likely reasons for the studies not being done in this area. First, there is a lack of defined cohorts of pediatric patients screened for DVT and secondly, there is a great deal of difficulty in following patients over many years. The study, Prophylaxis with Antithrombin Replacement in Kids with ALL treated with L-Asparaginase (PARKAA) was a multicentre randomized controlled trial in which children with ALL were screened for DVT. As survivors of childhood cancer, the PARKAA cohort continues to be followed in their respective centers. Therefore, establishment of the PARKAA cohort (1997–99) and the ability to locate these patients provided a unique opportunity to study the long-term outcome of asymptomatic DVT. OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence of PTS in children with ALL who previously had an asymptomatic DVT. The objective were approached in two ways. Firstly, to assess the outcome of asymptomatic DVT by determining the prevalence of PTS in children with a history of ALL with radiographically diagnosed DVT (PARKAA cohort); secondly, to corroborate the findings by determining the prevalence of PTS in an unselected group of survivors of childhood ALL. METHODS: Cross-sectional study in two separate populations: Group I comprised of children enrolled in the PARKAA multicentre study who had been screened for, and diagnosed with, DVT in the upper venous system. Group II consisted of non-selected patients < 21 years with a history of ALL followed at Stollery Children’s Hospital, Edmonton. Patients were invited for a follow-up at their treatment centre (Group I) or were assessed for PTS childhood cancer survivor clinic (Group II). PTS was assessed by two of the investigators (Group I) or by the attending oncologist (Group II), respectively, using a standardized scoring sheet. RESULTS: Group I: 13 PARKAA patients with a history of ALL and objectively diagnosed DVT were assessed for PTS (4 males; median age 11.9 years; median age at diagnosis of ALL 4.4 years). 7/13 patients had PTS (54%, 95%CI 25;81). All patients with PTS had collaterals on examination, 3 also had increased arm circumference. Group II: 41 patients with a history of ALL were enrolled (61% males; median age at diagnosis 3.0 years; 28% high-risk, 67% standard risk). Mean length of follow-up since diagnosis was 9.5 years. PTS was diagnosed in 10/41 (24%; 95%CI 11–38) patients. All patients with PTS had collaterals on examination, 5 (50%) also had increased arm circumference. CONCLUSIONS: There is a clinically significant prevalence of PTS in children with a history of ALL and radiographically diagnosed DVT. A significant proportion of survivors of ALL develop PTS, indicating previously undiagnosed DVT in this population.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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