Sex-Related Differences in Patient Characteristics, Risk Factors, and Symptomatology in Older Adults with Pulmonary Embolism: Findings from the SERIOUS-PE Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sex-specific factors are implicated in pulmonary embolism (PE) presentation in young patients, as indicated by increased risk in pregnancy. Whether sex differences exist in PE presentation, comorbidities, and symptomatology in older adults, the age group in which most PEs occur, remains unknown. We identified older adults (aged ≥65 years) with PE in a large international PE registry replete with information about relevant clinical characteristics (RIETE registry, 2001–2021). To provide national data from the United States, we assessed sex differences in clinical characteristics and risk factors of Medicare beneficiaries with PE (2001–2019). The majority of older adults with PE in RIETE (19,294/33,462, 57.7%) and in the Medicare database (551,492/948,823, 58.7%) were women. Compared with men, women with PE less frequently had atherosclerotic diseases, lung disease, cancer, or unprovoked PE, but more frequently had varicose veins, depression, prolonged immobility, or history of hormonal therapy (p < 0.001 for all). Women less often presented with chest pain (37.3 vs. 40.6%) or hemoptysis (2.4 vs. 5.6%) but more often with dyspnea (84.6 vs. 80.9%) (p < 0.001 for all). Measures of clot burden, PE risk stratification, and use of imaging modalities were comparable between women and men. PE is more common in elderly women than in men. Cancer and cardiovascular disease are more common in men, whereas transient provoking factors including trauma, immobility, or hormone therapy are more common in elderly women with PE. Whether such differences correlate with disparities in treatment or differences in short- or long-term clinical outcomes warrants further investigation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".