Survey of Perceptions and Practices among Canadian Gastroenterologists regarding the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism for Hospitalized Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who are hospitalized with disease flares are known to be at an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). This is a preventable complication; however, there is currently no standardized approach to the prevention and management of VTE. OBJECTIVES: To characterize the opinions and general prophylaxis patterns of Canadian gastroenterologists and IBD experts. METHODS: A survey questionnaire was sent to Canadian gastroenterologists affiliated with a medical school or IBD referral centre. Participants were required to be practicing physicians who had completed all of their training and had been involved in the care of IBD patients within the previous 12 months. Various clinical scenarios were presented and demographic data were solicited. RESULTS: The majority of respondents were practicing in an academic setting (95%) and considered themselves to be IBD experts or subspecialists (71%). Eighty-three per cent reported providing VTE prophylaxis most, if not all of the time, and most (96%) used pharmacological prophylaxis alone, usually heparin or one of its analogues. There was less consistency among respondents with respect to whether IBD patients in remission, but admitted for another condition, should be given prophylaxis. There was also less agreement regarding the duration of anticoagulation in patients with confirmed VTE. CONCLUSION: There was a general consensus among academic gastroenterologists that IBD inpatients are at an increased risk for VTE and would benefit from VTE prophylaxis. However, areas of uncertainty still exist and the IBD community would benefit from evidence-based clinical practice guidelines to standardize the management of this important problem.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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; 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".