MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117263944 · doi:10.1345/aph.1k566

Single Antiplatelet Therapy for Patients with Previous Gastrointestinal Bleeds

2008· article· en· W2117263944 on OpenAlexaff
Rochelle Gellatly, Margaret L. Ackman

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Pharmacotherapy · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
Canadian institutionsCapital District Health AuthorityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAspirinClopidogrelInternal medicineGastrointestinal bleedingBleedClinical trialRandomized controlled trialGastroenterologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether aspirin plus a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is preferable, from a gastrointestinal bleed (GIB) risk perspective, to clopidogrel in patients who have experienced a GIB while on aspirin and who require single antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was conducted using EMBASE (1980-January 2008), PubMed (1966-January 2008), Google, and a manual search of the reference lists using the search terms gastrointestinal bleed, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, peptic ulcer hemorrhage, ASA, aspirin, Plavix, clopidogrel, and PPI. The search, limited to human and English studies, yielded 110 returns. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Randomized trials that compared aspirin with clopidogrel, involved patients who had previously experienced a GIB, and provided detailed information on the type and dose of drugs used were included. Studies were required to provide information on the recurrence of GIB. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two randomized trials were reviewed to assess the safety of secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease with respect to previous GIB. These noninferiority trials compared aspirin plus a PPI with clopidogrel over 12 months following confirmed healing of an aspirin-induced ulcer. In both trials, the majority of the GIB recurrences were in the clopidogrel group (8.6% vs 0.7%; difference 7.9%; 95% CI 3.4 to 12.4; p = 0.001 and 13.6% vs 0%; difference 13.6%; 95% CI 6.3 to 20.9; p = 0.0019) and the difference in recurrence rates exceeded the a priori selected upper boundary. CONCLUSIONS: Findings reported in the limited literature available support that clopidogrel is not equivalent to the combination of aspirin plus a PPI in the patient population studied. Aspirin plus a PPI would be considered clinically superior and should be used in medically managed patients who require single antiplatelet therapy but have had a prior GIB while on aspirin. Further research regarding dual antiplatelet therapy and a PPI is required.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of PharmacotherapySame topicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular DiseasesFrench-language works237,207