Risk of venous thromboembolism in relatives of symptomatic probands with thrombophilia: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Clinical equipoise exists regarding whether relatives of individuals with venous thromboembolism (VTE) and thrombophilia should be screened for thrombophilia. There have been no systematic attempts to summarize studies that have assessed the incidence of VTE in relatives. The purpose of this review was to systematically identify and review observational studies with thrombophilic relatives and to summarize their findings with respect to their risk of VTE. We conducted a systematic literature review and included nine observational studies meeting a priori inclusion criteria. Potentially eligible studies evaluated VTE incidence in relatives of index patients (probands) with symptomatic thrombophilia. In the four prospective studies, the incidence of VTE for asymptomatic family members with factor V Leiden ranged from 0.58-0.67% per year, 1.0-2.5% for protein C deficiency, 0.7-2.2% for protein S deficiency, and 4% for antithrombin deficiency. About half of all VTEs occurred during well-known risk periods but incidence rates were decreased by use of prophylaxis. No deaths from pulmonary embolism or fatal hemorrhages from anticoagulants were reported. The incidence of VTE was generally lower in the retrospective studies. The pooled relative risk from four retrospective studies for factor V Leiden carriers was 3.69 (CI 2.27, 6.00) and from two studies the pooled relative risk for deficiencies of protein C, protein S, and antithrombin was 10.58 (CI 5.38, 20.81). In conclusion, the risk of VTE events in asymptomatic relatives is low, but this may be an underestimate. Anticoagulant prophylaxis during risk periods appears to be of benefit but further research in this area is required.
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 | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".