Two doses of rivaroxaban versus aspirin for prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) are at high risk for recurrence. Although rivaroxaban is effective for extended VTE treatment at a dose of 20 mg once daily, use of the 10 mg dose may further improve its benefit-to-risk ratio. Low-dose aspirin also reduces rates of recurrent VTE, but has not been compared with anticoagulant therapy. The EINSTEIN CHOICE study is a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, event-driven study comparing the efficacy and safety of two once daily doses of rivaroxaban (20 and 10 mg) with aspirin (100 mg daily) for the prevention of recurrent VTE in patients who completed 6-12 months of anticoagulant therapy for their index acute VTE event. All treatments will be given for 12 months. The primary efficacy objective is to determine whether both doses of rivaroxaban are superior to aspirin for the prevention of symptomatic recurrent VTE, while the principal safety outcome is the incidence of major bleeding. The trial is anticipated to enrol 2,850 patients from 230 sites in 31 countries over a period of 27 months. In conclusion, the EINSTEIN CHOICE study will provide new insights into the optimal antithrombotic strategy for extended VTE treatment by comparing two doses of rivaroxaban with aspirin (clinicaltrials.gov NCT02064439).
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".