The design of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis trials: Fondaparinux is definitely more effective than enoxaparin in orthopaedic surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fondaparinux trials in venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention after orthopaedic surgery have been subject to methodological criticisms recently summarised in this journal. These criticisms merit comments and corrections. Fondaparinux reduced the risk of VTE and of proximal deep-vein thrombosis by more than 55% compared with enoxaparin, based on the efficacy endpoint that supported the registration and use of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) in all their prophylactic indications, an endpoint endorsed by international consensus statements and health authorities. Fondaparinux is the only antithrombotic agent that significantly reduced the rate of symptomatic VTE in a single orthopaedic surgery trial that was powered to detect this effect. In contrast to the paucity of data available on LMWH, the relationship between the timing of first administration and efficacy and safety has been well documented for fondaparinux. Fondaparinux used according to its approved regimen provides a simple, easy-to-use, effective and safe post-operative regimen for all orthopaedic surgery patients.
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 | 0.031 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".