Bibliographic record
Abstract
New, non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been developed to overcome the limitations of warfarin. These include dabigatran, which inhibits thrombin, and rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, which inhibit factor Xa. In the US, rivaroxaban and apixaban are licensed for thromboprophylaxis after elective hip or knee arthroplasty, and rivaroxaban and dabigatran are approved for treatment of venous thromboembolism. Dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban also are licensed for stroke prevention in eligible patients with atrial fibrillation. Designed to be given in fixed doses without routine coagulation monitoring, the NOACs are more convenient to administer than warfarin. Phase III clinical trials have shown that the NOACs are at least as effective as warfarin and are associated with less intracranial bleeding. This article compares the pharmacological properties of the NOACs with those of warfarin, describes the clinical trial data with the NOACs in the approved indications, outlines the unmet medical needs that the NOACs address, highlights the potential limitations of the NOACs, and provides guidance on the optimal use of the NOACs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".