Tromboembolismo pulmonar agudo en tiempos de SARS-CoV-2: diagnóstico y tratamiento
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a clear association between novel coronavirus 2 infection and the diagnosis of venous thromboembolic disease, as a cosequence of the development of a systemic inflammatory response syndrome due to the activation of the coagulation cascade. It occurs in 90% of patients with severe forms of the infection, evidencing the presence of pulmonary endovascular micro and macro thrombosis. This suggests a possible clinical benefit of thromboprophylaxis according to the patient’s clinical risk. The suspicion of venous thromboembolic disease in the context of this pandemic represents a diagnostic challenge due to the co-existence of similarities between both conditions in several different aspects. It should be noted that the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism does not exclude the possibility of simultaneous viral infection. The evaluation of patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism in the context of the pandemic should be optimized in order to implement a rapid diagnosis and treatment to reduce the associated morbidity and mortality. This will help reducing infectious risk for health-care professionals and other patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".