P.090 A systematic review of the risks and benefits of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients suffering from traumatic brain injury (TBI) are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, initiation of chemoprophylaxis (VTEp) may cause further intracranial hemorrhage. We reviewed the literature to determine the post-injury time interval at which VTEp can be administered without risk of TBI evolution and hematoma expansion. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were: studies investigating timing and safety of VTEp in TBI patients not previously on oral anticoagulation. Two investigators extracted data and graded the papers based on levels of evidence. Results: A total of 408 studies were screened. Forty-five studies were reviewed in-entirety and 21 were included in the systematic review. There were 2 prospective randomized trials and 19 comparative studies. Eighteen total studies demonstrated that VTEp post injury in patients with stable head computed tomography scan does not lead to TBI progression. Fourteen studies demonstrated that VTEp administration specifically 24–72 hours post injury is safe in patients with stable injury. Four studies suggested that administering VTEp within 24 hours of injury in patients with stable TBI does not lead to progressive ICH. Conclusions: Literature suggests that administering VTEp 48 hours post-injury may be safe for patients with low-hemorrhagic risk TBIs and stable injury on repeat imaging.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".