Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize data relevant to novel oral anticoagulants (nOACs), mainly apixaban, dabigatran and rivaroxaban, as alternatives to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). RECENT FINDINGS: RE-LY was the first contemporaneous study to compare a nOAC, dabigatran, with dose-adjusted warfarin, for prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in atrial fibrillation. Since then multiple studies have compared nOACs to warfarin for acute (RE-COVER, RECOVER-II, EINSTEIN-DVT and EINSTEIN-PE) and extended treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) (AMPLIFY-EXT, RE-MEDY and RE-SONATE). Additional studies have examined stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (ARISTOTLE and ROCKET-AF). We do not examine, in depth, use of nOACs in coronary artery disease. SUMMARY: nOACs are an acceptable alternative to VKAs in certain situations - these are at least as effective as warfarin for secondary prevention of VTE and for prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation. These compare favorably with warfarin with respect to their rate of fatal and major bleeding. However, special attention should be given when using these drugs in certain patient populations, in particular in patients with renal insufficiency, those receiving additional antithrombotic therapy, those with questionable compliance, patients of child bearing potential and those with a high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".