Pneumatic Compression Versus Low Molecular Weight Heparin in Gynecologic Oncology Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy and treatment-related complications of low molecular weight heparin and external pneumatic compression in the prevention of venous thromboembolism of postoperative gynecologic oncology patients. METHODS A total of 211 patients over age 40 years, undergoing a major operative procedure for gynecologic malignancy, were randomized to receive perioperative thromboembolism prophylaxis with either low molecular weight heparin (n = 105) or external pneumatic compression (n = 106). Demographic data and clinical outcome were recorded for each patient. All patients underwent bilateral Doppler ultrasound of the lower extremities on postoperative days 3–5 to evaluate for the presence of occult deep vein thrombosis. A follow-up interview 30 days after surgery sought to detect patients who developed deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism after hospital discharge. RESULTS Venous thrombosis was diagnosed in two patients receiving low molecular weight heparin and in one patient receiving external pneumatic compression. The frequency of bleeding complications, measured by the number of required perioperative transfusions, and estimated intraoperative blood loss was similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION Low molecular weight heparin and external pneumatic compression are similarly effective in the postoperative prophylaxis of thromboembolism. The use of low molecular weight heparin is not associated with an increased risk of bleeding complications when compared with external pneumatic compression. We believe that both modalities are reasonable choices for prophylaxis in this high-risk group of patients. Low molecular weight heparin and external pneumatic compression are similarly effective in the postoperative prophylaxis of thromboembolism in gynecologic oncology patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".