Thromboembolic events, recurrent bleeding and mortality after resuming anticoagulant following gastrointestinal bleeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding commonly complicates anticoagulant therapy. We aimed to systematically review the published literature to determine the risk of thromboembolism, recurrent GI bleeding and mortality for patients on long-term anticoagulation who experience GI bleeding based on whether anticoagulation therapy was resumed. We performed a systematic review of phase III randomised controlled trials and cohort studies in patients with atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism who received oral anticoagulant. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL (from 1996-July 2014), conferences abstracts (from January 2006-July 2014) and www.clinicaltrials.gov (up to the last week of July 2014) with no language restriction. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction and study quality assessment. A total of three studies were included in the meta-analysis. The resumption of warfarin was associated with a significant reduction in thromboembolic events (hazard ratio [HR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52 to 0.88, p<0.004, I(²)=82%). There was an increase in recurrent GI bleeding but not statistically significant for patients who restarted warfarin compared to those who did not (HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.48, p = 0.10, I(²) = 0%). Resumption of warfarin was associated with significant reduction in mortality (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.88, p<0.001, I(²) = 87%). This meta-analysis demonstrates that resumption of warfarin following interruption due to GI bleeding is associated with a reduction in thromboembolic events and mortality without a statistically significant increase in recurrent GI bleeding.
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 | 0.012 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".