VTE prophylaxis in pregnant people with chronic physical disability: Data from a physicians survey and the need for guidance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: International guidelines recommend risk assessment during the antepartum and postpartum period to inform VTE prophylaxis. We aimed to evaluate physicians' approach to VTE prophylaxis of women with chronic physical disability (CPD) during pregnancy. Methods: A cross-sectional study consisting of a self-administered electronic questionnaire was sent to specialists across Canada. Results: Seventy-three participants responded to the survey, and 55 (75.3%) completed the survey including 33 (60%) Maternal Fetal Medicine (MFM) specialists and 22 (40%) Internal Medicine (IM) specialists including physicians with an interest in Obstetric Medicine. Our study shows considerable variation in VTE thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy with CPD. Most respondents favoured antepartum (67.3%) and postpartum (65.5%) VTE prophylaxis for pregnancies within a year of spinal cord injury. Conclusions: In order to better manage this complex population, CPD should be considered as a risk factor for development of VTE.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".