MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388733017 · doi:10.1111/aogs.14712

Risk of venous thromboembolism in pregnant patients with active malignancy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2023· review· en· W4388733017 on OpenAlexafffund
Sara Folkins, Ashley Miller, Chris Nash

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersIWK Health Centre
KeywordsMedicineMalignancyOdds ratioPregnancyCancerConfidence intervalMeta-analysisObstetricsGynecologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Cancer currently occurs in about 1 in 1000 pregnancies. Both active malignancy and pregnancy are individual risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). The purpose of this systematic review/meta-analysis was to evaluate the rate of VTE in pregnant patients with active malignancy compared with pregnant patients without malignancy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Embase, Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Database, and clinicaltrial.gov were search by a trained librarian from inception until June 2021, and limited to English and French language human studies using keywords related to pregnancy, neoplasm, and thrombosis. This study was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021245886). Title, abstract, and full-text review was performed using the Covidence data management system. Two authors reviewed the studies independently. Of the 3821 articles screened, seven cohort studies were included that reported VTE rate in patients with active malignancy in pregnancy. RESULTS: A total of 5928 individuals had active malignancy and pregnancy. Active malignancy in pregnancy significantly increased the odds of a VTE (odds ratio [OR] 6.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.8-12.1). Specifically, patients with thyroid (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.3-6.3), cervix (OR 6.6, 95% CI 2.4-18.0), or other gynecological (OR 10.6, 95% CI 4.4-25.8) cancers; Hodgkin's lymphoma (OR 8.7, 95% CI 3.3-23.4); or acute leukemia (OR 17.1, 95% CI 10.9-26.8) all had increased odds, whereas those with brain cancer (OR 6.1, 95% CI 0.4-98.2), breast cancer (OR 2.5, 95% CI 0.3-17.4), malignant melanoma (OR 5.5, 95% CI 0.3-88.1), or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (OR 3.2, 95% CI 0.8-12.9) malignancies did not have statistically significant increased odds for VTE. No studies reported whether prophylactic anticoagulation was used during pregnancy in this population; nor did they report timing in pregnancy of the VTE. The absolute risk for VTE in those with active malignancy was 0.9% compared with 0.2% in those without active malignancy in pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnancy with active malignancy confers a significant increased risk for VTE compared with pregnancy alone. Given this finding, prophylactic anticoagulation during pregnancy and postpartum could be considered in this patient population. Data are underpowered to make firm recommendations per cancer type.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.029
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Obstetricia Et Gynecologica ScandinavicaSame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207