Hydroxyurea Compared with Anagrelide in High-Risk Essential Thrombocythemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We conducted a randomized comparison of hydroxyurea with anagrelide in the treatment of essential thrombocythemia. METHODS: A total of 809 patients with essential thrombocythemia who were at high risk for vascular events received low-dose aspirin plus either anagrelide or hydroxyurea. The composite primary end point was the actuarial risk of arterial thrombosis (myocardial infarction, unstable angina, cerebrovascular accident, transient ischemic attack, or peripheral arterial thrombosis), venous thrombosis (deep-vein thrombosis, splanchnic-vein thrombosis, or pulmonary embolism), serious hemorrhage, or death from thrombotic or hemorrhagic causes. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 39 months, patients in the anagrelide group were significantly more likely than those in the hydroxyurea group to have reached the primary end point (odds ratio, 1.57; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.04 to 2.37; P=0.03). As compared with hydroxyurea plus aspirin, anagrelide plus aspirin was associated with increased rates of arterial thrombosis (P=0.004), serious hemorrhage (P=0.008), and transformation to myelofibrosis (P=0.01) but with a decreased rate of venous thromboembolism (P=0.006). Patients receiving anagrelide were more likely to withdraw from their assigned treatment (P<0.001). Equivalent long-term control of the platelet count was achieved in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Hydroxyurea plus low-dose aspirin is superior to anagrelide plus low-dose aspirin for patients with essential thrombocythemia at high risk for vascular events.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".