MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395466790 · doi:10.20452/pamw.16739

Primary prevention of venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients: recent advances and practical implications

2024· review· en· W4395466790 on OpenAlexafffund
Amye M. Harrigan, Marc Carrier, Tzu‐Fei Wang

Bibliographic record

VenuePolskie Archiwum Medycyny Wewnętrznej · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaDalhousie University
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsVenous thromboembolismAmbulatoryMedicineCancerIntensive care medicinePrimary preventionInternal medicineThrombosisDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication in ambulatory cancer patients receiving anticancer therapies. Many patient-, cancer-, and treatment‑related factors along with specific biomarkers can be associated with an increased risk of VTE in patients with cancer. Risk assessment models, such as the Khorana score, serve as valuable tools to aid in the identification of patients with cancer who are at high risk of VTE. Two randomized controlled trials have evaluated the efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis with low‑dose direct oral anticoagulants, apixaban and rivaroxaban, to reduce the risk of VTE in ambulatory patients with cancer who are at intermediate to high risk of VTE identified by the Khorana score. This narrative review summarizes the literature on the risk factors and risk assessment process for VTE, and the use of primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients. We also outline important practical considerations for initiating primary thromboprophylaxis in this population.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolskie Archiwum Medycyny WewnętrznejSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207