Fondaparinux Compared with Enoxaparin for the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism after Hip-Fracture Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgery for hip fracture carries a high risk of venous thromboembolism, despite the use of current thromboprophylactic treatments. Fondaparinux, a synthetic pentasaccharide, is a new antithrombotic agent that may reduce this risk. METHODS: In a double-blind study, were randomly assigned 1711 consecutive patients undergoing surgery for fracture of the upper third of the femur to receive subcutaneous doses of either 2.5 mg of fondaparinux once daily, initiated postoperatively, or 40 mg of enoxaparin once daily, initiated preoperatively, for at least five days. The primary efficacy outcome was venous thromboembolism up to postoperative day 11. Venous thromboembolism was defined as deep-vein thrombosis detected by mandatory bilateral venography, documented symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis, or documented symptomatic pulmonary embolism. The main safety outcomes were major bleeding and mortality from all causes. The duration of follow-up was six weeks. RESULTS: The incidence of venous thromboembolism by day 11 was 8.3 percent (52 of 626 patients) in the fondaparinux group and 19.1 percent (119 of 624 patients) in the enoxaparin group (P<0.001). The reduction in risk with fondaparinux was 56.4 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 39.0 to 70.3 percent). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of death or clinically relevant bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing surgery for hip fracture, fondaparinux was more effective than enoxaparin in preventing venous thromboembolism and equally safe.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".