Efficacy and Safety of Dabigatran vs. Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation - Sub-Analysis in Japanese Population in RE-LY Trial -
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: RE-LY (Randomized Evaluation of Long-term Anticoagulation Therapy) is an international multicenter study (18,113 patients from 967 centers in 44 countries) that demonstrated the ability of dabigatran to reduce the occurrence of both stroke and hemorrhage in patients who had atrial fibrillation (AF) with high risks of stroke compared with patients who received warfarin. From Japan, 326 patients were randomized in RE-LY. METHODS AND RESULTS: RE-LY was designed to compare 2 fixed doses (110 mg or 150 mg, twice daily) of dabigatran, each administered in a blinded manner, with open-label use of warfarin. There were no major differences in patient demographic information among the overall study population and Japanese patients. However, in Japanese patients, the proportion of prior stroke was higher but prior myocardial infarction was lower than in the overall. The yearly rate for the primary endpoints (stroke and systemic embolism) was 1.38, 0.67 and 2.65%/year for 110 mg and 150 mg dabigatran twice daily and warfarin, respectively. These results were similar to the overall results (1.54, 1.11 and 1.71%/year for each group, respectively). For any bleeding, the relative risk of dabigatran at 110 mg and 150 mg twice daily over warfarin was 0.79 and 1.06, respectively, which was similar to the findings overall (dabigatran 110 mg twice daily: 0.78; 150 mg twice daily: 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: In RE-LY, the efficacy and safety profiles of dabigatran for Japanese AF patients at high risk of stroke were essentially the same as for the study population overall.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".