MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041406002 · doi:10.2147/tcrm.s30159

Rivaroxaban as an oral anticoagulant for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation

2014· review· en· W2041406002 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander G.G. Turpie

Bibliographic record

VenueTherapeutics and Clinical Risk Management · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersJanssen Research and DevelopmentBayer HealthCare
KeywordsRivaroxabanMedicineApixabanAtrial fibrillationEdoxabanStroke (engine)DabigatranWarfarinVitamin K antagonistInternal medicinePopulationAnticoagulantCardiologyClinical trialIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in the developed world and is associated with a fivefold increase in the risk of stroke, accounting for up to 15% of strokes in the general population. The European Society of Cardiology now recommends direct oral anticoagulants, such as rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran, in preference to vitamin K antagonist therapy for the prevention of stroke in patients with A F. This review focuses on the direct Factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban, summarizing the properties that make rivaroxaban appropriate for anticoagulant therapy in this indication (including its predictable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile and once-daily dosing regimen) and describing data from the Phase III ROCKET AF trial, which showed once-daily rivaroxaban to be noninferior to warfarin for the prevention of stroke in patients with nonvalvular AF. In this trial, similar rates of major and nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding were observed; however, when compared with warfarin, rivaroxaban was associated with clinically significant reductions in intracranial and fatal bleeding. On the basis of these results, rivaroxaban was approved in both the United States and the European Union for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular AF. Subanalyses of ROCKET AF data showed rivaroxaban to have consistent efficacy and safety across a wide range of patients, and studies to confirm these results in real-world settings are underway. This review also describes practical considerations for treatment with rivaroxaban in clinical practice (including dose reductions in specific high-risk patients, eg, those with renal impairment), recommendations for the transition from vitamin K antagonists to rivaroxaban, the management of bleeding events, and the measurement of rivaroxaban exposure.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.233
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations12
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTherapeutics and Clinical Risk ManagementSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207