Les thromboses veineuses distales : problématique de leur diagnostic et de leur traitement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Compression ultrasonography is the reference test for the diagnosis of distal deep venous thrombosis of lower limbs. However, the ways it is performed and the related treatments are very heterogeneous between various countries. CURRENT KNOWLEDGE AND KEY POINTS: In USA, Canada and Netherlands, compression ultrasonography is restricted to proximal limbs considering that this test is inadequate to explore the distal veins. The strategy consisting of a clinical approach, including the clinical probability and/or a follow-up ultrasonography has demonstrated its efficacy and safety (extension rate to proximal veins of 1.2% at three months and absence of fatal pulmonary embolism). In France, Italy and Spain, lower limb ultrasonography testing includes the examination of calf veins in a so called "complete testing". This procedure leads to the diagnosis of a large number of distal deep venous thrombosis (45-56%) among the 14 to 36% of deep vein thrombosis diagnosed in the setting of clinical suspicion. Recent diagnosis strategy studies have shown that both strategies are effective, but the complete ultrasound strategy doubles the number of anticoagulation treatments. Justification of inappropriate anticoagulation is not evident owing to the relatively low risk of proximal venous-thrombosis extension, the rate of severe hemorrhagic events at three months and the cost excess. FUTURE PROSPECTS AND PROJECTS: Prospective comparative clinical trials are necessary in distal-venous thrombosis and ongoing Cactus study addresses this therapeutic dilemma.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".