Practical guidance for using rivaroxaban in patients with atrial fibrillation: balancing benefit and risk
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rivaroxaban is a direct factor Xa inhibitor that is widely available to reduce the risk of stroke or systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and one or more risk factors for stroke. Rivaroxaban provides practical advantages compared with warfarin and other vitamin K antagonists, including a rapid onset of action, few drug interactions, no dietary interactions, a predictable anticoagulant effect, and no requirement for routine coagulation monitoring. However, questions have emerged relating to the responsible use of rivaroxaban in day-to-day clinical practice, including patient selection, dosing, treatment of patients with renal impairment, conversion from use of vitamin K antagonists to rivaroxaban and vice versa, coagulation tests, and management of patients requiring invasive procedures or experiencing bleeding or an ischemic event. This article provides practical recommendations relating to the use of rivaroxaban in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, based on clinical trial evidence, relevant guidelines, prescribing information, and the authors' clinical experience.
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.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 it