MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2173155709 · doi:10.1111/bjh.13810

Laboratory measurement of the direct oral anticoagulants

2015· review· en· W2173155709 on OpenAlexafffund
Brian Dale, Noel Chan, John W. Eikelboom

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Haematology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsThrombosis and Atherosclerosis Research InstituteMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRivaroxabanEdoxabanApixabanDabigatranMedicineAnticoagulantDiscovery and development of direct thrombin inhibitorsPharmacologyCoagulationDirect thrombin inhibitorDrugWarfarinThrombinInternal medicineAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), including the direct thrombin inhibitor, dabigatran, and the direct factor Xa (FXa) inhibitors, rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban, are approved for thromboembolism prevention and treatment. These drugs do not require routine coagulation monitoring but, in some circumstances, measurement of drug level or anticoagulant effect may be necessary. Although traditional coagulation tests lack analytical sensitivity and specificity, they are widely available and inexpensive, and can provide useful information regarding the residual anticoagulant effect of DOACs. Hemoclot® and ecarin-based assays can be used to quantify dabigatran level and calibrated chromogenic anti-FXa assays are suitable for measuring rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban levels, but these tests are not yet widely available.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations100
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of HaematologySame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207