MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Monitoring and reversal of direct oral anticoagulants

2015· review· en· W2226543781 on OpenAlexaff
Adam Cuker, Deborah Siegal

Bibliographic record

VenueHematology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDabigatranRivaroxabanEdoxabanApixabanMedicinePartial thromboplastin timeIdarucizumabWarfarinAnticoagulantPharmacologyThrombinAnesthesiaInternal medicineCoagulationAtrial fibrillationPlatelet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) do not require routine monitoring and reduce bleeding compared with warfarin, there are special circumstances in which laboratory measurement or reversal of their anticoagulant effect may be indicated. The dilute thrombin time and ecarin-based assays are able to quantify dabigatran across a broad range of concentrations, but are not widely available. A normal thrombin time excludes clinically relevant levels and a normal activated partial thromboplastin time probably excludes excess levels of dabigatran. Factor Xa inhibitors may be quantified with an anti-Xa assay calibrated with drug-specific standards. A normal prothrombin time probably excludes excess levels of rivaroxaban and edoxaban, but not apixaban. Patients with minor and moderate DOAC-associated bleeding can be treated with supportive care and general hemostatic measures. Nonspecific reversal agents (eg, prothrombin complex concentrate, activated prothrombin complex concentrate) are of unproven benefit, carry a risk of thrombosis, and should be reserved for severe bleeding. Specific reversal agents, such as idarucizumab (a monoclonal antibody fragment that binds dabigatran) and andexanet alfa (a recombinant factor Xa variant that binds factor Xa inhibitors but lacks coagulant activity), are in clinical development.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.267
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations60
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHematologySame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207