Prevention of venous thromboembolism in acute spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage: A survey of opinion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: People immobilized following acute spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) are at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) but the role of short-term prophylactic anticoagulation remains uncertain. We surveyed UK clinical practice and opinion regarding preventing VTE after ICH. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An online survey was sent to stroke healthcare professionals within the United Kingdom and Ireland via a professional society (British and Irish Association of Stroke Physicians (BIASP)). RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-three staff members responded to the survey, of whom 80% were consultant stroke physicians. All responders except one considered the issue to be important or extremely important, but only 5 (4%) were "extremely certain" and 51 (41%) "fairly certain" regarding the optimal treatment approach. Intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) devices alone were the most used method (in 60%) followed by IPC devices and switching to low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) (in 30%). We identified high levels of uncertainty regarding the role of anticoagulation, and its optimal timing; uncertainty was greater in lobar compared to deep ICH. Most respondents (93%) consider a randomised controlled trial investigating the role of pharmacological VTE prophylaxis after acute ICH as important and would consider participation. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The optimal method for the prevention of VTE in non-traumatic ICH patients remains an area of clinical uncertainty. Clinical trials assessing short-term anticoagulation in patients after acute ICH would be beneficial in providing evidence to resolve this clinical dilemma.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".