Comparison of Ximelagatran with Warfarin for the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism after Total Knee Replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In a previous study of the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total knee replacement, the efficacy of ximelagatran, an oral direct thrombin inhibitor that does not require monitoring of coagulation or dose adjustment, was found to be similar to that of warfarin at a dose of 24 mg of ximelagatran twice daily. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether a higher dose of ximelagatran is superior to warfarin. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind trial compared a regimen of 7 to 12 days of oral ximelagatran, at a dose of 24 or 36 mg twice daily, starting the morning after surgery, with warfarin therapy started the evening of the day of surgery. The composite end point of venous thromboembolism and death from all causes and the incidence of bleeding were the primary outcome measures. RESULTS: Among the 1851 patients in the efficacy analysis, oral ximelagatran at a dose of 36 mg twice daily was superior to warfarin with respect to the primary composite end point of venous thromboembolism and death from all causes (20.3 percent vs. 27.6 percent; P=0.003). There were no significant differences between these two groups with respect to major bleeding (incidence, 0.8 percent and 0.7 percent, respectively), perioperative indicators of bleeding, wound characteristics, or the composite secondary end point of proximal deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and death (2.7 percent vs. 4.1 percent; P=0.17). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of oral ximelagatran, administered starting the morning after total knee replacement, was superior to that of warfarin for prevention of venous thromboembolism. Rates of hemorrhagic complications with the two drugs were similar.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".