Treatment in patients with cat receiving LMWH: Learnings from predicare, a non-interventional prospective cohort study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e24154 Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a difficult to treat condition in cancer patients with a persisting risk of recurrent VTE (rVTE). We conducted a prospective multicenter observational cohort study in VTE cancer patients treated with tinzaparin for 6 months in order to validate the Ottawa score. The Ottawa score is composed of 5 items, female (+1), lung (+1), breast (-1), cancer stage I (-2) and previous VTE (+1). Methods: Adult cancer patients with recent diagnosis of documented VTE treated with tinzaparin for 6 months were included. The primary endpoint was the rVTE within the first 6 months. Other endpoints were symptomatic rVTE and major bleeding (MB). All events were adjudicated by a Central Adjudication Committee. To validate the Ottawa score, the area under the curve (AUC) and its 95% CI were calculated on receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Results: 409 patients were included; median age: 68 years; pulmonary embolism: 60.4%; lung cancer: 31.3%; digestive cancer: 18.3%; stage IV cancers: 67.0%. According to Ottawa score, 58% were classified at high clinical probability of recurrence (score ≥ 1). Among all patients, during the 6 months treatment period, 7.3% and 3.7% had rVTE and MB, respectively. 9.1% had rVTE for patients with a score ≥ 1 compared to 5 % for other patients (score < 1). AUC of the Ottawa score was 0.60 (95% CI 0.55-0.65). Conclusions: This prospective cohort of patients with cancer receiving tinzaparin for VTE reported that the Ottawa score did not accurately predict rVTE. Clinical trial information: NCT03099031 .
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".