Thorough cardiac QTc interval conductance assessment of a novel oral tranexamic acid treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of a novel oral tranexamic acid treatment on cardiac repolarization in a randomized, double-blind, positive- and placebo-controlled, four-treatment single-dose cross-over inpatient study. METHODS: QTc interval and drug exposure relationship analyses were performed using triplicate digital electrocardiographs (ECGs) collected from 12-lead Holter monitors from healthy females (n = 48) with plasma drug concentrations and pharmacokinetics simultaneously evaluated over 24 h post-dose. Therapeutic (1.3 g) and supratherapeutic (3.9 g) tranexamic acid modified immediate-release doses, a positive-control 0.4 g moxifloxacin dose, and a placebo-control were administered at each period. RESULTS: All post-dose, time-matched, baseline-adjusted, mean QTcF (Fridericia's heart rate correction, QT/RR(1/3)) treatment-placebo differences (DeltaDeltaQTcF), were less than 5 milliseconds (ms) for the 1.3 g and 3.9 g tranexamic acid doses. Upper limits of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for all tranexamic acid-placebo DeltaDeltaQTcF doses were < 10 ms for all time points. Lower limits of the 95% CI for the positive-control (moxifloxacin-placebo) DeltaDeltaQTcF were > 5 ms at multiple time points demonstrating assay sensitivity. No correlation between tranexamic acid plasma concentrations and adjusted QTc intervals was observed. A positive linear relationship was observed for moxifloxacin (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Cardiac repolarization is not influenced by tranexamic acid at the doses studied.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".