MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404888990 · doi:10.3324/haematol.2023.284612

Minor trauma and venous thromboembolism: the threshold for antithrombotic prophylaxis

2024· review· en· W4404888990 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandre Tran, Pamela L. Lutsey, Marc Carrier

Bibliographic record

VenueHaematologica · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicineAmbulatoryVenous thromboembolismMinor (academic)AntithromboticIntensive care medicineMajor traumaEmergency medicineSurgeryInternal medicineThrombosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trauma is an established risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Whether minor trauma is linked to greater risk of VTE remains unclear given that many studies evaluating trauma and VTE risk have not differentiated risk by trauma severity. Furthermore, the underlying risk of VTE is not uniform across all injured patients. While it is generally accepted that severely and moderately injured patients requiring prolonged hospitalization benefit from early and consistent administration of thromboprophylaxis, the threshold for its initiation following minor injury or in patients managed in an ambulatory setting is less clear. This review will describe how trauma is classified, summarize the evidence of the risk of VTE in patients with minor trauma, and guide clinicians through an approach to individualize these treatment decisions based on contemporary evidence. Guidance will be provided for both injured patients requiring hospitalization (who may have severe, moderate or minor trauma), and those suitable to be managed in an ambulatory setting (minor trauma).

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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHaematologicaSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207