A non-interventional comparison of rivaroxaban with standard of care for thromboprophylaxis after major orthopaedic surgery in 17,701 patients with propensity score adjustment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rivaroxaban demonstrated superior efficacy and a similar safety profile to enoxaparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in the phase III RECORD programme in patients undergoing elective hip or knee replacement surgery. The XAMOS study investigated adverse events, including bleeding and thromboembolic events, in patients receiving rivaroxaban for thromboprophylaxis in routine clinical practice. XAMOS was a non-interventional, open-label cohort study in patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery of the hip or knee (predominantly elective arthroplasty), in which rivaroxaban was compared with other pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. All adverse events were documented, including symptomatic thromboembolic and bleeding events. Crude and adjusted incidences based on propensity score subclasses were calculated and compared between the rivaroxaban and standard-of-care groups. A total of 17,701 patients were enrolled from 252 centres in 37 countries. Crude incidences of symptomatic thromboembolic events three months after surgery in the safety population were 0.89% in the rivaroxaban group (n=8,778) and 1.35% in the standard-of-care group (n=8,635; odds ratio [OR] 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.87), and 0.91% and 1.31% (weighted) in the propensity score-adjusted analysis (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.56-0.85), respectively. Treatment-emergent major bleeding events (as defined in the RECORD studies) occurred in 0.40% and 0.34% of patients in the rivaroxaban and standard-of-care groups in the safety population (OR 1.19; 95% CI 0.73-1.95), and in 0.44% versus 0.33% (weighted) in the propensity score-adjusted analysis (OR 1.35; 95% CI 0.94-1.93), respectively.This study in unselected patients confirmed the favourable benefit-risk profile of rivaroxaban seen in the RECORD programme.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".