MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041349698 · doi:10.1586/14779072.2014.938055

Oral anticoagulant use in addition to antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention in acute coronary syndrome: current perspectives

2014· review· en· W2041349698 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander G. G. Turpie

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRivaroxabanAcute coronary syndromeTIMIClopidogrelInternal medicineP2Y12CardiologyPlatelet aggregation inhibitorPrasugrelSecondary preventionAspirinWarfarinMyocardial infarctionPercutaneous coronary interventionAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are typically managed with long-term dual antiplatelet therapy of acetylsalicylic acid plus a P2Y12 platelet receptor antagonist; however, although effective, the risk of another vascular event within 12 months remains at approximately 10%. Considerable efforts have been made to find improved therapeutic approaches to secondary prevention in ACS. The ATLAS ACS 2-TIMI 51 trial demonstrated that rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) significantly reduced recurrent vascular events, increased the risk of major bleeding but not the risk of fatal bleeding, and resulted in reduced rates of death from cardiovascular causes. These results formed the basis for approval in Europe of rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) in conjunction with standard antiplatelet therapy for the secondary prevention of ACS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Cardiovascular TherapySame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207