MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6944922104 · doi:10.22038/jctm.2022.65621.1381

Association of Venous Thromboembolism and Inflammatory Bowel Disease

2023· article· en· W6944922104 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInflammatory bowel diseaseIncidence (geometry)Venous thromboembolismRegimenDiseaseUlcerative colitisCoagulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Studies have shown that patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have an increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). VTEs causes significant morbidity and mortality.Methods: We carried out a comprehensive search through different online databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Medline. We focused on some of patients-related factors that may affect the risk of VTE incidence among IBD patients and also reviewed current guidelines on the prophylactic regimen of the IBD patients.Results: Based on the previous studies, the hypercoagulable nature of the disease results from a complex interaction between the systems participating in the coagulation cascade, including endothelial cells, platelets, and coagulation factors. There are a number of clinical factors that increase the probability of VTE development which include disease activity, age, pregnancy, surgery, and medical treatment.Conclusion: Taken together, these data suggest to initiate prophylactic regimen in IBD patients and to adjust it regarding to the patient’s condition and the presence of other predisposing 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 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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.388 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→