MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Thrombophilia testing: does practice follow guidelines?

2024· letter· en· W4402756059 on OpenAlexaff
Saskia Middeldorp, Alfonso Iorio

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood Advances · 2024
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThrombophiliaMedicineMEDLINEIntensive care medicineInternal medicineBiologyThrombosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this issue of Blood Advances, using the large, multicenter international Computerized Registry of Patients with Venous Thromboembolism (RIETE) of >100 000 patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE), Cohen et al 1 have investigated the impact of inherited thrombophilia on anticoagulant management and clinical outcomes.Approximately 20% of all patients were tested for inherited thrombophilia, and not surprisingly, clinical characteristics and VTE risk factors differed markedly between tested and untested patients with VTE.Testing for inherited thrombophilia was done more frequently in younger patients, patients with VTE provoked by estrogen use, pregnancy or postpartum, unprovoked VTE, and prior VTE, and less commonly in those with immobilization (4 days) and major risk factors such as surgery or active cancer, a pattern that has been recognized over the past decades. 2,

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood AdvancesSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207