Treatment of isolated distal deep vein thrombosis: an international survey of healthcare professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Isolated distal deep venous thrombosis (iDDVT) is an infra-popliteal DVT without pulmonary embolism (PE). It is a common condition, but its management remains debated. We conducted a survey distributed by email to the members of the French Society of Vascular Medicine, Thrombosis Canada, the Swiss Society of Angiology and INVENT-VTE research networks; Our objectives were to determine how healthcare professionals specialized in thrombosis manage iDDVT and to obtain experts input on the design of a future clinical trial. Participants were asked how they diagnosed and managed iDDVT and what should be the treatment arms of a future clinical trial on iDDVT management. 472 thrombosis specialists answered the questionnaire, mainly from France (n = 337), Canada (n = 61) and Switzerland (n = 28). Overall, 87.9% (n = 405) of respondents stated that their center always performed whole leg ultrasound in case of suspected DVT and that they managed patients with iDDVT usually at least once a week in 50.3% (n = 229) of cases. In 91.0% (n = 415) of cases respondents treated patients with iDDVT with anticoagulation more than 75% of time, with therapeutic doses and for a duration of 3 months in 90.2% (n = 406) and 74.7% (n = 334) of cases respectively. Most respondent managed muscular and deep-calf vein DVT similarly. More than 60% of respondents favored future trials comparing prophylactic versus therapeutic anticoagulation. Our real-world, international, practice survey of healthcare professionals shows that almost all respondents always conduct whole leg ultrasonography in case of suspected DVT and that they treat iDDVT with therapeutic anticoagulation usually for 3 months.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".