MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136459019 · doi:10.1185/03007995.2013.803462

Venous thromboembolism management: where do novel anticoagulants fit?

2013· review· en· W2136459019 on OpenAlexaff
Alex C. Spyropoulos, Alexander G.G. Turpie

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Medical Research and Opinion · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsHamilton General HospitalHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVenous thromboembolismDabigatranIntensive care medicineRivaroxabanWarfarinAtrial fibrillationInternal medicineThrombosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To review novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) trials in the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and the possible use of risk-stratification tools to guide their use in practice. SCOPE: MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were searched to identify relevant journal articles published from January 1982 to February 2013. Additional references were obtained from articles extracted during the database search. FINDINGS: NOACs have been developed to optimize VTE management and overcome the limitations of heparin and vitamin K antagonists (VKA). The AMPLIFY and EINSTEIN trials of apixaban and rivaroxaban, respectively, investigated single-drug management of VTE, whereas the edoxaban Hokusai-VTE trial and dabigatran RE-COVER and RE-COVER II trials investigated the use of NOACs with a heparin lead-in. The AMPLIFY and Hokusai-VTE trials are ongoing but the EINSTEIN and RE-COVER trials have demonstrated that rivaroxaban and dabigatran, respectively, are non-inferior to parenteral anticoagulants and warfarin in the management of VTE. Differences in study design complicate the application of study results to clinical practice. There are multiple validated DVT protocols that effectively and safely treat patients in outpatient settings. The pulmonary embolism (PE) severity index (PESI), simplified PESI (sPESI), and other prognostic tools have been used to risk stratify patients with PE by estimating mortality risk to guide outpatient eligibility. CONCLUSIONS: NOACs provide physicians with new therapeutic options in the management of VTE. While heparin and VKAs compose the current standard treatment for VTE, their use will likely disappear as physicians grow comfortable with the adoption of NOACs. As studies have not clearly defined the efficacy of these agents in certain patient populations, further data in special patient populations and risk stratification through the use of VTE severity scores could potentially be adapted to guide anticoagulant management and outpatient treatment eligibility.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.288
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Medical Research and OpinionSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207