Role of factor VIII, IX, and XI in venous thrombosis recurrence risk in adults and children: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Predicting recurrent venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) is challenging in clinical practice for both adults and children, but it is relevant for clinical management. Identifying laboratory risk factors for VTE recurrence may aid in clinical decision-making. Objective: The goal of this systematic review is to investigate the predictive role of FVIII, IX, or XI in recurrent VTE in adult and pediatric patients with a first VTE. Methods: A systematic review of the published literature was conducted in databases MEDLINE In-Process, Other Nonindexed Citations, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, EMBASE Classic + EMBASE (OvidSP), and Cochrane (Wiley). We included observational and interventional studies that comprised adults or children with a first VTE, FVIII, FIX, and/or FXI and objectively confirmed VTE recurrence. The quality in prognosis studies tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Results: We identified 2177 unique studies, of which 19 were included (18 for adults and 1 for children). The risk of bias was overall low to moderate. The studies were heterogenous with regards to population (provoked/unprovoked primary VTE), exposure (type of assay and cut-off values), and statistical analysis results (measures of association and modeling strategy). In adults, contradictory evidence was found for FVIII and FXI as outcome predictors, while no research could establish if FIX predicts VTE recurrence. Data in pediatrics were limited. Given the extensive heterogeneity of the literature, a meta-analysis was not performed. Conclusions: Overall, there is contradictory evidence that FVIII, FIX, or FXI predict recurrent VTE in adults and children. Addressing heterogeneity is a relevant aspect to consider in future studies investigating prognostic factors for VTE recurrence.
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 | 0.007 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".