Profile of Patients with Isolated Distal Deep Vein Thrombosis versus Proximal Deep Vein Thrombosis or Pulmonary Embolism: RE-COVERY DVT/PE Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Isolated distal deep vein thrombosis (IDDVT) is presumed to be more benign than proximal DVT (PDVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), suggesting a need for different management approaches. This subgroup analysis of the RE-COVERY DVT/PE global, observational study investigated patient characteristics, hospitalization details, and anticoagulant therapy in patients with IDDVT in real-world settings in 34 countries enrolled from January 2016 to May 2017. Data were analyzed descriptively according to the type and location of the index venous thromboembolism (VTE): IDDVT, PDVT ± distal DVT (DDVT), and PE ± DVT. Of the 6,095 eligible patients, 323 with DVT located outside the lower limb and no PE were excluded. Of the remaining 5,772 patients, 17.6% had IDDVT, 39.9% had PDVT ± DDVT, and 42.5% had PE ± DVT. IDDVT patients were younger and had fewer risk factors for VTE than the other groups. Other comorbidities were less frequent in the IDDVT group, except for varicose veins, superficial thrombophlebitis, and venous insufficiency. IDDVT patients were less likely to be diagnosed in an emergency department (22.3 vs. 29.7% for PDVT ± DDVT and 45.4% for PE ± DVT) or hospitalized for VTE (29.2 vs. 48.5% for PDVT ± DDVT and 75.0% for PE ± DVT). At hospital discharge or 14 days after diagnosis (whichever was later), non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants were the most commonly used anticoagulants (55.6% for IDDVT, 54.7% for PDVT ± DDVT, and 52.8% for PE ± DVT). Although differences in patient characteristics, risk factors, and clinical management were identified, anticoagulant treatment of IDDVT was almost equal to that of PDVT or PE. Prospective studies should investigate whether, in a global perspective, this is an appropriate use of anticoagulants.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".