Relationship between Surgery and Trauma and Risk of Recurrence in Patients with an Associated First Venous Thrombotic Event: A Nested Case-Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The duration of anticoagulation treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) depends on whether the event was provoked or unprovoked. Major surgery or trauma are well-established major provoking factors associated with a low risk of recurrence, but the magnitude of risk with VTE after minor surgery or trauma is uncertain.To compare the rate of recurrence in patients with VTE provoked by minor surgery or trauma with that in patients with VTE provoked by major surgery or trauma.Nested, case-control study of patients with a first VTE diagnosed within 90 days after major or minor surgery or trauma. Patients with unprovoked VTE or VTE provoked by cancer or nonsurgical risk factors were excluded. Crude and adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated and results were adjusted for potential confounders.A total of 319 patients with recurrent VTE (cases) were matched to 974 patients without recurrence (controls). The incidence of recurrence after VTE provoked by minor surgery (6.5%; 95% CI: 5.6-7.6) was more than double that after VTE provoked by major surgery (3.0%; 95% CI: 2.4-3.6), a difference that remained even after adjustment for known VTE risk factors. There were no differences in recurrence rates between VTE provoked by minor and major trauma.The risk of recurrence is higher in patients with VTE provoked by minor surgery than major surgery. These findings support the concept that the risk of recurrence is higher with minimally provoked VTE than with VTE provoked by major transient risk factors.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".