New oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: impact of study design, double counting and unexpected findings on interpretation of study results and conclusions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four recently introduced new oral anticoagulants (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban) have been shown to be at least as efficacious and safe as warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in their respective trials. The first three have been approved, while edoxaban is awaiting regulatory approval. Several guidelines have endorsed the approved new oral anticoagulants over warfarin because of their favourable risk-benefit ratio, low propensity for food and drug interactions, and lack of requirement for routine coagulation monitoring. In this invited review, we summarise the results of the four studies and discuss widely held conclusions. We take a step further and discuss how differences in study design, analysis plan, and unexpected events affect the interpretation of the study results. Finally, we take our re-interpretation of study results and discuss how they might impact clinical practice and anticoagulant choice for patients.
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 | 0.348 | 0.477 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".