Fondaparinux in the treatment of acute coronary syndromes: evidence from OASIS 5 and 6
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anticoagulant therapy is widely used for the management of acute coronary syndromes. In order to optimize patient outcomes, anticoagulants should ideally combine high antithrombotic efficacy with a low risk of bleeding. Intravenous unfractionated heparin has been in clinical use for more than 50 years and reduces the risk of recurrent ischemic events in patients with acute coronary syndromes but at the cost of increased bleeding. Enoxaparin, compared with intravenous unfractionated heparin, further reduces the risk of ischemic events but also increases bleeding. Neither of these approaches has been shown to reduce mortality. The synthetic parenteral Factor Xa inhibitor, fondaparinux, is highly effective for the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolic disease in medical and surgical patients. The Organization for the Assessment of Strategies for Ischemic Syndromes (OASIS) 5 and 6 trials evaluated the efficacy and safety of fondaparinux in more than 32,000 patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes or ST elevation myocardial infarction. This clinical trial report discusses the findings of these two pivotal trials.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".