A Retrospective Study of Adult and Pediatric D‐Dimer Tests to Identify Opportunities for Improved Utilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: D-dimers are produced by lysis of cross-linked fibrin. In children, D-dimer testing is used to evaluate disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and some inflammatory states, but its use is not validated for screening or ruling out suspected venous thromboembolic events (VTE). In adults, D-dimers are used to evaluate DIC, and a low D-dimer level is used to exclude VTE in patients when combined with a low or moderate probability of VTE. METHODS: To assess D-dimer utilization and opportunities for improvement, we conducted a retrospective, consecutive-case cohort study (with ethics approval) of patients who had D-dimer tests at Hamilton hospitals, from 06/2022 to 05/2023. RESULTS: D-dimer levels were evaluated for 175 children and 200 adults (respective results, children/adults: median ages: 12/63, ranges 0-17/18-94 years), and an overlapping cohort of 99 consecutive persons with ≥ 5 D-dimer determinations. Most patients had D-dimer tests in emergency departments (60%/62%) and elevated D-dimer levels (55%/61%). Reasons for D-dimer assessment included: suspected VTE (50%/70%), DIC (17%/3.5%), childhood inflammatory conditions (23%/0%), and "off-label" uses (e.g., arterial thrombosis assessment; 5%/22%). VTE likelihood and DIC scores were rarely documented. Patients with multiple tests accounted for 15% of D-dimer workload. Among patients with multiple tests for DIC, most had overt DIC on initial assessment, with declining D-dimer levels over 10-14 days, including patients who died. CONCLUSION: VTE and DIC assessment was the most common reason for D-dimer assessments for children and adults. Quality improvement initiatives are needed to improve relevant clinical VTE and DIC score documentation and D-dimer test utilization.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".