A dose-finding study with TAK-442, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, in patients undergoing elective total knee replacement surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This multicentre dose-finding study compared TAK-442, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, with enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after knee arthroplasty. In this parallel group study, patients were randomised to oral TAK-442 (40 or 80 mg once-daily [QD] or 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg twice-daily [BID] started 6-8 hours postoperatively), which was blinded as to dose, or to open-label subcutaneous enoxaparin (30 mg BID starting 12-24 hours postoperatively) for 10 days. Treatments were continued until bilateral venography was performed (maximum of 14 days). The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of any deep-vein thrombosis, non-fatal pulmonary embolism or all-cause mortality, while the primary safety endpoint was major bleeding. Of 1,038 patients randomised who received at least one dose of study drug, 949 completed the study and 730 (76.9%) were evaluable for the primary efficacy analysis. Recruitment into the 10 and 20 mg BID dose groups was stopped early because the incidences of the primary efficacy endpoint were significantly higher than that with enoxaparin. The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 22.0% of patients given enoxaparin and in 39.0%, 38.4%, 23.5%, 21.4%, 26.8%, and 14.3% of those receiving TAK-442 10 mg BID, 20 mg BID, 40 mg QD, 40 mg BID, 80 mg QD, and 80 mg BID, respectively. The incidences of major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding with TAK-442 were not dose-dependent or different from that with enoxaparin. All TAK-442 doses except 10 and 20 mg BID displayed similar efficacy and safety profiles to enoxaparin.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".