The risk of venous thromboembolism in early pregnancy loss: Review of the literature and current guidelines and the need for guidance – Communication from the SSC on Women’s Health Issues for thrombosis and haemostasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Thromboembolic disease is one of the major causes of mortality and morbidity in pregnancy and the puerperium, with 1 death per 100 000 births attributed to venous thromboembolism (VTE). Factors associated with development of thrombosis are all present in pregnancy, with some of these changes seen from conception. OBJECTIVE: Given how common early pregnancy loss is, the aim of this review is to evaluate the uncertainty surrounding the risk of VTE following early pregnancy loss and termination of pregnancy. METHODS: A structured literature search was conducted to identify existing evidence as well as international pregnancy-specific guidelines regarding assessment and prevention of VTE risk in pregnant women. This review was reviewed, critiqued, and approved by all members of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis subcommittee for Women's Health Issues in Thrombosis and Haemostasis. RESULTS: Four published original research studies, one clinical comment paper, and six guidelines were reviewed. Despite clear evidence of the increased risk of VTE in pregnancy, there is a lack of guidance regarding evaluation and management after early pregnancy loss. CONCLUSION: International collaborative research to determine the risk of VTE and its prevention in women undergoing surgical termination of pregnancy or following surgical management of early pregnancy loss is urgently needed. Pregnancy-specific risk assessment taking into account preexisting risk factors is advocated. Education of health care professionals involved in early pregnancy care and guidance on management, albeit based on limited existing evidence, are necessary to highlight the need for individualized care.
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 | 0.011 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".