Sex differences in treatment strategies for pulmonary embolism in older adults: The SERIOUS-PE study of RIETE participants and US Medicare beneficiaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Sex differences exist in risk factors and comorbidities of older adults (aged ⩾ 65 years) with pulmonary embolism (PE). Clinically relevant sex-based treatment disparities for PE have not been adequately addressed. The few existing show conflicting results due to small sample size (type II error) and suboptimal methods (overreliance on p -value, which may detect differences of small clinical relevance). Methods: We assessed sex differences in anticoagulation and advanced therapies for PE in older adults, utilizing data from Registro Informatizado Enfermedad TromboEmbolica (RIETE), a large PE registry with predominant participation from Europe, and data from US Medicare beneficiaries. We prespecified a standardized difference (SRD) > 10% as clinically relevant. RIETE included 33,462 (57.7% female) and Medicare included 102,391 (55.0% female) older adults with PE. Results: In RIETE, there were no overall sex differences in the use of anticoagulation (median: 181 vs 180 days, SRD < 1%), fibrinolysis (SRD < 3%), thrombectomy (SRD < 2%), or inferior vena cava (IVC) filters (SRD: 4.4%). However, fibrinolytic therapy (systemic or catheter-based) was less often used in female than male patients with intermediate-risk PE (8.0% vs 12.1%, SRD: 13.6%). No sex differences were noted with advanced PE therapies in Medicare beneficiaries. In unadjusted analyses, fibrinolysis and IVC filter placement were more frequent in Medicare than RIETE participants regardless of sex ( p < 0.001). Conclusion: In a predominantly European PE registry and a US study of older adults, there were no overall sex differences in anticoagulation patterns or advanced therapy utilization. Future studies should determine if sex disparities in fibrinolytic therapy for intermediate-risk PE and greater use of advanced therapies in US older adults correlate with clinical outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".