A Step Change in Oral Anticoagulation: Lack of Coagulation Monitoring with Ximelagatran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The clinical development of ximelagatran for the treatment and prevention of various arterial and venous thromboembolic disorders has used fixed-dose regimens without coagulation monitoring in all indications. Although monitoring is not required, effects on the various coagulation assays that are available are seen with its active form melagatran, and there are situations where an assessment of anticoagulant effect may help to inform clinical decisions. However, the sensitivity of different coagulation assays varies considerably. The thrombin clotting time (TT) and ecarin clotting time (ECT) are highly sensitive to plasma melagatran concentrations (IC 50 approximately 0.01 micromol/L and approximately 0.15 micromol/L, respectively), with an approximate linear relationship between plasma melagatran concentration and prolongation of clotting time. In comparison, the activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) (IC 50 approximately 0.3 to 0.8 micromol/L) and prothrombin time (PT) (IC 50 approximately 0.9 to 2.9 micromol/L) are relatively insensitive, and the concentration-response relationship shows a flattening with increasing plasma melagatran concentration. Commercially available APTT and PT reagents varied considerably in their sensitivity to melagatran. Comparing the various coagulation assays, the APTT, ECT, and TT are suitable choices when an indicator of the anticoagulant effect of ximelagatran is required, although the absence of international standards requires calibration of each test in individual laboratories and the ECT is not widely available.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".