MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086168044 · doi:10.1161/atvbaha.110.203117

Coagulation Factor IXa as a Target for Treatment and Prophylaxis of Venous Thromboembolism

2010· review· en· W2086168044 on OpenAlexaff
John W. Eikelboom, Steven L. Zelenkofske, Christopher P. Rusconi

Bibliographic record

VenueArteriosclerosis Thrombosis and Vascular Biology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFactor IXaMedicineCoagulationAnticoagulantDiscovery and development of direct thrombin inhibitorsVenous thromboembolismIntensive care medicineTissue factorDosingFactor XPharmacologyThrombinInternal medicineThrombosisPlatelet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Venous thromboembolism remains a frequent cause of vascular death. Despite advances in anticoagulant drug development, unmet needs remain, including limited treatment options for patients with severe renal impairment and the inability to fully reverse the effects of anticoagulants approved or in late-stage development. Because coagulation factor IXa plays a pivotal role in tissue factor-mediated thrombin generation, it represents an attractive target for anticoagulant development. This article discusses the rationale for factor IXa as an anticoagulant target and the potential role in venous thromboembolism prevention or management of the 2 factor IXa inhibitors that have undergone testing in phase 1 or 2 trials: TTP889, an oral, small-molecule compound, and RB006, an aptamer-based compound, the intravenous and subcutaneous formulations of which are the anticoagulant components of the REG1 and REG2 anticoagulation systems, respectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArteriosclerosis Thrombosis and Vascular BiologySame topicBlood Coagulation and Thrombosis MechanismsFrench-language works237,207