Bleeding risk and the management of bleeding complications in patients undergoing anticoagulant therapy: focus on new anticoagulant agents
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For more than 60 years, heparin and coumarin have been mainstays of anticoagulation therapy. They are widely available, inexpensive, effective, and have specific antidotes but are regarded as problematic because of their need for careful monitoring. In addition, coumarin has a delayed onset of action, interacts with many medications, has a narrow therapeutic window, and is paradoxically prothrombotic in certain settings (ie, can precipitate "coumarin necrosis"). Heparin may require monitoring of its therapeutic effect and can also cause thrombosis (heparin-induced thrombocytopenia/thrombosis syndrome). These limitations have led to the development of new anticoagulants with the potential to replace current agents. These newer agents fall into 2 classes, based on whether they are antithrombin dependent (low-molecular-weight heparin, fondaparinux) or antithrombin independent (direct inhibitors of factor Xa and thrombin [factor IIa]). This paper addresses newer anticoagulants, reviewing their efficacy and limitations, and focuses on the risk of major bleeding that may complicate their use. In contrast to heparin and coumarin, none of these newer agents has a specific antidote that completely reverses its anticoagulant effect. Available data on the efficacy and safety of current and experimental agents for anticoagulant reversal are reviewed, and a plan for management of anticoagulant-induced bleeding is presented.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it