Venous Thromboembolism Risk in Ischemic Stroke Patients Receiving Extended-Duration Enoxaparin Prophylaxis: Results From the EXCLAIM Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The optimal duration of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in acute stroke patients is unknown. This subanalysis of the Extended Prophylaxis for Venous ThromboEmbolism in Acutely Ill Medical Patients With Prolonged Immobilization (EXCLAIM) study investigated extended-duration thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin, compared with placebo following standard-duration enoxaparin, in ischemic stroke patients. METHODS: Acutely ill medical patients with recently reduced mobility received open-label enoxaparin 40 mg for 10±4 days, and they were then randomized to double-blind enoxaparin 40 mg daily or placebo for further 28±4 days. Venous thromboembolism incidence (symptomatic/asymptomatic deep-vein thrombosis, symptomatic/fatal pulmonary embolism) up to day 28 after randomization and major bleeding rates up to 48 h after the last dose of study treatment were reported. RESULTS: In total, 389 of 5963 (6.5%) randomized patients had ischemic stroke: 198 received extended-duration prophylaxis and 191 placebo. Extended-duration prophylaxis reduced venous thromboembolism incidence versus placebo (2.4% versus 8.0%; absolute risk difference, -5.6%; 95% CI, -10.5% to -0.7%), but it was associated with an increase in major bleeding (1.5% versus 0% in enoxaparin and placebo groups; absolute risk difference, +1.5%; 95% CI, -0.2% to 3.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Extended-duration thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin was associated with reduced venous thromboembolism risk and increased major bleeding in the subgroup of patients with ischemic stroke in the EXCLAIM study.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".