How to manage patients with symptomatic subsegmental pulmonary embolism?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in modalities for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) have led to a rise in the incidence of this disease. Some studies report a decrease in the case‑fatality rate of PE with no changes in the mortality rate, suggesting potential overdiagnosis. A growing number of diagnoses of less severe, smaller PE (ie, perfusion defects affecting pulmonary arteries of smaller caliber) of unknown clinical significance may potentially explain this phenomenon. Potentially higher rates of false-positive results are also an important matter of clinical concern. Only low-quality evidence suggested that subsegmental PE may be safely managed without initiating anticoagulation. Based on an individualized risk-benefit ratio, current clinical practice guidelines suggest that a selected group of patients with subsegmental PE, deemed to be at low risk of recurrence and without concomitant deep vein thrombosis detected by serial bilateral leg ultrasound, might benefit from clinical surveillance instead of anticoagulation. This approach is currently assessed in an ongoing prospective cohort study.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".