MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386125821 · doi:10.3389/fcvm.2023.1250480

A systematic evaluation and meta-analysis of early prediction of post-thrombotic syndrome

2023· review· en· W4386125821 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tong Yu, Jialin Song, Lingke Yu, Wanlin Deng

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPost-thrombotic syndromeMedicineDeep veinMeta-analysisInternal medicineLogistic regressionIncidence (geometry)Venous thrombosisThrombosisFamily historyOverweightObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) is the most common long-term complication in patients with deep venous thrombosis, and the prevention of PTS remains a major challenge in clinical practice. Some studies have explored early predictors and constructed corresponding prediction models, whereas their specific application and predictive value are controversial. Therefore, we conducted this systematic evaluation and meta-analysis to investigate the incidence of PTS and the feasibility of early prediction. Methods: We systematically searched databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science up to April 7, 2023. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the included articles, and the OR values of the predictors in multi-factor logistic regression were pooled to assess whether they could be used as effective independent predictors. Results: We systematically included 20 articles involving 8,512 subjects, with a predominant onset of PTS between 6 and 72 months, with a 2-year incidence of 37.5% (95% CI: 27.8-47.7%). The results for the early predictors were as follows: old age OR = 1.840 (95% CI: 1.410-2.402), obesity or overweight OR = 1.721 (95% CI: 1.245-2.378), proximal deep vein thrombosis OR = 2.335 (95% CI: 1.855-2.938), history of venous thromboembolism OR = 3.593 (95% CI: 1.738-7.240), history of smoking OR = 2.051 (95% CI: 1.305-3.224), varicose veins OR = 2.405 (95% CI: 1.344-4.304), and baseline Villalta score OR = 1.095(95% CI: 1.056-1.135). Meanwhile, gender, unprovoked DVT and insufficient anticoagulation were not independent predictors. Seven studies constructed risk prediction models. In the training set, the c-index of the prediction models was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.74-0.80) with a sensitivity of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.68-0.81) and specificity of 0.69 (95% CI: 0.60-0.77). In the validation set, the c-index, sensitivity and specificity of the prediction models were 0.74(95% CI: 0.69-0.79), 0.71(95% CI: 0.64-0.78) and 0.72(95% CI: 0.67-0.76), respectively. Conclusions: With a high incidence after venous thrombosis, PTS is a complication that cannot be ignored in patients with venous thrombosis. Risk prediction scoring based on early model construction is a feasible option, which helps to identify the patient's condition and develop an individualized prevention program to reduce the risk of PTS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0260.050
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Cardiovascular MedicineSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207