Clinical history of cancer‐associated splanchnic vein thrombosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer represents a risk factor for splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT) and usual site venous thromboembolism (VTE). OBJECTIVES: To compare characteristics and outcomes of patients with cancer-associated SVT and usual site VTE. PATIENTS/METHODS: Patients with solid cancer and SVT were enrolled in an international, prospective registry between May 2008 and January 2012. The comparison cohort included (1:1 ratio) patients with solid cancer and usual site VTE treated at two thrombosis centers who had a minimum of 12 months follow-up at December 2019 or experienced one of the outcomes within 12 months follow-up. Recurrent VTE, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality were evaluated at 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 264 patients (132 in each cohort) were enrolled. Patients with SVT were less likely to have metastatic disease (36.1% vs 72.5%) or receive cancer therapy at thrombosis diagnosis (29.6% vs 64.9%). The most frequent cancer types were hepatobiliary and pancreatic in the SVT cohort and gastrointestinal in the usual site VTE cohort. Fewer patients with SVT received anticoagulation (68.9% vs 99.2%), and treatment duration was shorter (6.0 vs 11.0 months). The cumulative incidence of major bleeding (2.3% vs 4.7%) was nonsignificantly lower in the SVT cohort, whereas recurrent thrombosis (4.7% vs 5.5%) and all-cause mortality (41.7% vs 39.4%) were comparable between the two cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of recurrent thrombosis and bleeding appears to be similar in cancer patients with SVT and cancer patients with usual site VTE, despite some differences in baseline characteristics and anticoagulant treatment. Further prospective studies are warranted to confirm these findings.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".