Anticoagulation for Patients with Venous Thromboembolism: When is Extended Treatment Required?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The need for extended venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment beyond 3 to 6 months is usually determined by balancing the risk of recurrence if treatment is stopped against the risk of bleeding from continuing treatment. The risk of recurrence, and in turn the decision to extend, can be determined through the nature of the index event. Patients with VTE provoked by surgery or trauma (major transient risk factors) are recommended to receive 3 months of anticoagulation therapy because their risk of recurrence is low, whereas patients with VTE provoked by a major persistent risk factor, such as cancer, or those considered to have "unprovoked" VTE, are recommended to receive an extended duration of therapy based on an established high risk of recurrence. Nonetheless, recent evidence and new guidance identify that this approach fails to consider patients with risk factors classed as minor transient (e.g., impaired mobility and pregnancy) or minor persistent (e.g., inflammatory bowel disease and congestive heart disease). Indeed, the risk of recurrence with respect to VTE provoked by minor persistent risk factors has been demonstrated to be not dissimilar to that of VTE without identifiable risk factors. This review provides an overview of the available data on the risk of recurrence according to the underlying cause of VTE, a critical evaluation of evidence from clinical studies on the available anticoagulants for extended VTE treatment, models of risk prediction for recurrent VTE and bleeding, and guidance on how to apply the evidence in practice.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".