Edoxaban for treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Direct oral anticoagulants may be effective and safe for treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients, but they have not been compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), the current recommended treatment for these patients. The Hokusai VTE-cancer study is a randomised, open-label, clinical trial to evaluate whether edoxaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, is non-inferior to LMWH for treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. We present the rationale and some design features of the study. One such feature is the composite primary outcome of recurrent VTE and major bleeding during a 12-month study period. These two complications occur frequently in cancer patients receiving anticoagulant treatment and have a significant impact. The evaluation beyond six months will fill the current gap in the evidence base for the long-term treatment of these patients. Based on the observation that the risk of recurrent VTE in patients with active cancer is similar to that in those with a history of cancer, the Hokusai VTE-cancer study will enrol patients if whose cancer was diagnosed within the past two years. In addition, patients with incidental VTE are eligible because their risk of recurrent VTE is similar to that in patients with symptomatic disease. The unique design features of the Hokusai VTE-cancer study should lead to enrolment of a broad spectrum of cancer patients with VTE who could benefit from oral anticoagulant treatment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".