Provoked versus unprovoked venous thromboembolism: Findings from GARFIELD‐VTE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) has a long-term risk of recurrence, dependent on the presence or absence of provoking risk factors at the time of the event. OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical characteristics, anticoagulant patterns, and 12-month outcomes in patients with transient provoking factors, active cancer, and unprovoked VTE. METHODS: The Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD (GARFIELD)-VTE is a prospective, observational study that enrolled 10 207 patients with objectively diagnosed VTE from 415 sites in 28 countries. RESULTS: Patients with transient provoking factors were younger (53.0 years) and more frequently women (61.2%) than patients with unprovoked VTE (60.3 years; 43.0% women) or active cancer (63.6 years; 51.7% women). After 6 months, 59.1% of patients with transient provoking factors remained on anticoagulation, compared to 71.3% with unprovoked VTE and 47.3% with active cancer. At 12 months, this decreased to 36.7%, 51.5%, and 25.4%, respectively. The risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.62), recurrent VTE (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.62-1.14), and major bleeding (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.86-1.85) was comparable in patients with transient provoking factors and unprovoked VTE. Patients with minor and major transient provoking factors had a similar risk of recurrent VTE (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.59-1.66), but those with major transient risk factors had a lower risk of death (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38-0.98). CONCLUSION: At 1 year, nearly 40% of patients with transient provoking factors and slightly over half of patients with unprovoked VTE were on anticoagulant treatment. Event rates were comparable between the two groups. Risk of death was higher in patients with minor transient factors than in those with major transient factors.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".