MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7161846960 · doi:10.82308/29050

Assessment of risk factors in the development of thromboembolism in a trauma population

2002· dissertation· en· W7161846960 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andreas Nikolis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulmonary embolismMajor traumaVenous thrombosisThrombosisInjury Severity ScoreRisk assessmentRadiological weaponPULMONARY EMBOLUSDeep vein

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to: (a) identify risk factors for the development of venothromboembolism in a trauma population, (b) evaluate whether risk factors vary with increasing Injury Severity Score (ISS), and (c) assess the predictive ability of the Risk Assessment Profile for Thromboembolism (RAPT) in this trauma population. There were 7532 admissions for trauma between 1993 and 1998 to the Montreal General Hospital trauma center. A nested case-control design was used. Cases were defined as all patients with radiological evidence of either a deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolus during their admission. Controls were patients satisfying the same inclusion criteria who did not suffer a symptomatic deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism while in hospital, did not have evidence of deep venous thrombosis prior to the traumatic event, and found to be free of any symptomatic thromboembolic events on consequent follow up. Patients were divided into three categories, ISS 1--24 (mild-moderate injuries), ISS 25--59 (moderate-severe injuries), and ISS 60--75 (severe-fatal injuries). (Abstract shortened by UMI.)

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)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.299 · 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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→French-language works237,207→