A survey of physicians’ opinions about the treatment of subsegmental pulmonary embolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The aim of this study was to survey the attitudes of internists, cardiologists, and pulmonologists regarding treatment or no treatment of isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism (ISSPE) with anticoagulant drugs. Methods Qualified physicians were asked to select their management options from a questionnaire that included a patient scenario with subsegmental pulmonary embolism (SSPE) and negative past medical history of thromboembolism. Results A total of 113 physicians responded to the survey. Of these, 8.8% preferred not to treat patients without further evaluation; 15% decided not to treat, but follow-up the patient with a serial lower-limb colour Doppler ultrasonography; 1.7% preferred anticoagulant treatment only during hospitalization and follow-up without medication; 5% preferred anticoagulant treatment for less than 3 months; and 34.5% chose a 3--6-month treatment with anticoagulation. Furthermore, 24% of physicians opted for anticoagulant treatment for more than 6 months, and 9.7% left the decision up to the patient. Opting not to treat was an option selected by more board-certified faculty members specialized in cardiology, internal medicine, and pulmonology compared with residents (p = 0.038). Willingness to provide anticoagulant therapy in the internal medicine, cardiology and pulmonology groups was 56.6%, 37.3% and 6%, respectively (p = 0.007). Conclusion The majority of physicians surveyed prefer anticoagulant therapy in patients with SSPE.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".