Predicting Thrombosis Recurrence in Children: The Role of Thrombophilia Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The role of inherited thrombophilia testing in predicting a recurrence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) after an incident of the first DVT in children remains unclear Objectives: To investigate the association between inherited thrombophilia and DVT recurrence. Design/Method: We conducted a retrospective regional study of all consecutive ICD10 codes of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in children over 15 years (January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2015) in a regional catchment area of southern Sweden using an electronic diagnosis registry. Eligible subjects were children aged 1-18 years presenting with DVT diagnosed with imaging and having undergone complete inherited thrombophilia workup after the first DVT event. Of the 174 patients diagnosed with DVTs, 139 were eligible for inclusion. Data regarding subject demographics and medical history, location of DVT and imaging method, coagulation studies at primary investigation including at least plasma concentrations of protein C, protein S, antithrombin, resistance to activated protein C, and the genotypes FVG1691A and FIIG20210A. Also, plasma values for coagulation factors, VIII and XI, D-dimer, INR, and cardiolipin antibodies, were analyzed. Results: A total of 139 patients had inherited thrombophilia workup after the incident of the first DVT. Inherited thrombophilia was found in 30 % of patients, the prevalence of minor thrombophilia among these 139 patients was 23 % (n = 32), whereas major thrombophilia accounted for 7 % (n = 10) of abnormal results. Anticoagulants as treatment were administered in 92 % of the first DVT. The majority of the cohort treated with anticoagulation therapy for 12 weeks. Patients with minor inherited thrombophilia treated for at least 24 weeks, whereas the patients with major inherited thrombophilia were continued on anticoagulation therapy for the long term. The incidence rate of recurrent thromboembolic events was 6.5 % (n = 9) of patients after their incident of the first thrombotic event. Recurrent thrombosis in patients with spontaneous DVT and proven inherited thrombophilia found in only 1 %. Conclusion: Inherited thrombophilia was not predictive of recurrent DVT among our cohort patients. Our findings suggest that Inherited thrombophilia testing may not predict risk for the recurrence of DVT, although it may help for adjustment of the duration of the anticoagulation therapy. Figure 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 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".