MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206736016 · doi:10.1016/j.tru.2022.100098

Venous thromboembolism risk, prophylaxis and management in cancer patients with COVID-19: An unmet medical need

2022· review· en· W4206736016 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin Brenner, Cihan Ay, Grégoire Le Gal, Marc Carrier, Andrés J. Muñoz Martín, Giancarlo Agnelli, Ana Thereza Rocha, Hikmat Abdel‐Razeq, Ismaı̈l Elalamy, Anna Falanga

Bibliographic record

VenueThrombosis Update · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersSanofi
KeywordsMedicineCancerThrombosisIntensive care medicinePopulationVenous thromboembolismIncidence (geometry)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicDiseaseInternal medicineVenous thrombosisInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cancer patients exhibit an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), with VTE being the second leading cause of morbidity and mortality in these patients. The implementation of lockdowns following the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in decreased mobility and delayed access to care, thus further increasing the susceptibility to VTE. Cancer patients may also be at a higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and have been shown to be more likely to experience severe COVID-19 disease compared to patients without cancer. Given that both cancer and COVID-19 exhibit a hypercoagulable state, stasis of blood flow, and endothelial injury, cancer patients with COVID-19 constitute a vulnerable population with a high risk of thrombosis and bleeding. However, to date there are limited studies evaluating whether cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 have a higher VTE incidence than COVID-19 patients without cancer, how to assess the risk of VTE, prophylaxis and treatment in this special population. Herein, we highlight the urgent need for studies in cancer patients with COVID-19 to ensure appropriate patient care and improve clinical outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThrombosis UpdateSame topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impactsFrench-language works237,207