Treatment with dabigatran or warfarin in patients with venous thromboembolism and cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy and safety of dabigatran for treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) were demonstrated in two trials. It is unclear if the results pertain to patients with cancer and VTE. Data from two randomised trials comparing dabigatran and warfarin for acute VTE were pooled. Primary efficacy outcome was symptomatic recurrent VTE and related death from randomisation to the end of the treatment period. Safety outcomes were major, major and clinically relevant non-major, and any bleeding during the oral-only treatment period. Patients with active cancer (=within 5 years) at baseline or diagnosed during the study were analysed. Compared with 4,772 patients without cancer, recurrent VTE occurred more frequently in 335 patients with cancer at any time (hazard ratio [HR] 3.3; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 2.1-5.3) and more often in 114 with cancer diagnosed during the study compared to 221 with cancer at baseline (HR 2.6; 95 % CI, 1.1-6.2). There was no significant difference in efficacy between dabigatran and warfarin for cancer at baseline (HR 0.75; 95 % CI, 0.20-2.8) or diagnosed during the study (HR 0.63; 95 % CI, 0.20-2.0). Major bleeding (HR 4.1; 95 % CI, 2.2-7.5) and any bleeding (HR 1.5; 95 % CI, 1.2-2.0) were more frequent in patients with cancer than without, but with similar incidence in cancer with dabigatran or warfarin. In conclusion, in cancer patients, dabigatran provided similar clinical benefit as warfarin. VTE recurrence or bleeding were similar in patients on dabigatran or warfarin. The efficacy of dabigatran has not been assessed in comparison with low-molecular-weight heparin.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".