OC 11.3 Association between Body Mass Index and Pulmonary Embolism and Performance of the Age-Adjusted D-dimer Strategy in Obese Patients with Suspected Pulmonary Embolism: A Prospective Management Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) diagnostic strategies have not been prospectively evaluated in anticoagulated patients with prior VTE.Aims: To prospectively evaluate the performance of clinical decision rules (CDR) and D-dimers in anticoagulated patients presenting with suspected recurrent VTE.Methods: The PREDICTORS study (NCT02297373) is an international prospective multicenter observational cohort study of outpatients with suspected VTE recurrence.Wells scores for deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) and revised Geneva score were computed.Ddimers were performed as part of usual clinical practice.Follow-up was 3 months.VTE were independently adjudicated.Results: 298 anticoagulated patients were included.In patients with suspected DVT only, 1/41 (2.4%), 10/82 (12.2%) and 18/68 (26.5%) patients had recurrent VTE in the low, moderate, and high-risk groups respectively, during the entire study period.Amongst 44 patients with suspected DVT with negative D-dimers, 0/15 (0.0%) and 2/20 (10.0%) patients had recurrent VTE at enrollment in the low and moderate-risk groups respectively and no recurrent VTE occurred during follow-up.In patients with suspected PE only, when using the Wells score, 1/38 (2.6%), 8/ 59 (13.6%) and 5/10 (50.0%) patients had recurrent VTE in the low, moderate, and high-risk groups, respectively and when using the revised Geneva score, 0/24 (0.0%), 12/73 (16.4%) and 2/10 (20.0%) patients had
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".