Enoxaparin for prevention of unexplained recurrent miscarriage: a multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is common practice in many centers to offer antithrombotic medications to women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage, in the presence or absence of inherited thrombophilia. Although no benefit of aspirin vs placebo has been clearly demonstrated, a double-blind placebo-controlled trial on the effect of low-molecular-weight heparin is lacking. We enrolled 258 pregnant women with a history of unexplained recurrent miscarriage (≥2 consecutive miscarriages before 15 weeks' gestation) and a negative thrombophilia workup. They were randomly assigned to receive one daily subcutaneous injection of enoxaparin 40 mg or placebo until 35 weeks' gestation. We included 256 women (mean age 32 years, ≥3 miscarriages: 72%; mean gestational age 39 days of amenorrhea) in the intention-to-treat analysis; 66.6% of 138 who received enoxaparin had a live birth vs 72.9% of 118 who received placebo. The absolute difference was -6% (95% CI, -17.1 to 5.1), excluding a 10% increase in the rate of live-birth on enoxaparin (P = .34). In this first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, enoxaparin (40 mg once daily) did not improve the chance of a live birth in nonthrombophilic women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage. This trial is registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT00740545 and the French National Health and Drug Safety Agency (EudraCT #2006-003350-18).
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".