Venous thromboembolism in bullous pemphigoid: current evidence from an updated systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various studies have shown that individuals with bullous pemphigoid (BP) are more likely to develop venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, it is important to acknowledge that these studies primarily focused on individuals in Western nations, which restricts their generalization to a wider demographic. The present systematic review aims to assess the cumulative risk of VTE in individuals with BP compared to healthy individuals. PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases were searched for evidence-based research papers on BP and VTE. Eligibility criteria were based on the PICOS criteria (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and study design). The Newcastle-Ottawa scale assessed methodological quality. After database searches, 115 studies meeting the inclusion criteria were identified. A manual inquiry yielded an additional 11 articles. After removing duplicates (n=54), 72 publications underwent title and abstract evaluation, resulting in the exclusion of 44 manuscripts. Consequently, the remaining full-text articles were thoroughly reviewed, and ultimately, 9 publications were included. The studies were conducted in Denmark, the USA, the UK, Taiwan, and Italy. The findings enhanced the generalizability of the correlation between VTE and BP. Individuals with systemic autoimmune diseases were found to have a 1.5 to 4 times higher likelihood of developing VTE. The analysis revealed that patients with pemphigus face a twofold higher risk of VTE, especially within the first few years after diagnosis. These results may enhance the recognition of pulmonary embolism in BP patients and motivate the prevention of secondary risk markers associated with VTE. Given the morbidity, the VTE risk in BP patients warrants greater attention in public healthcare.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".