MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2234029494 · doi:10.1111/acem.12865

Comparison of Four Bleeding Risk Scores to Identify Rivaroxaban‐treated Patients With Venous Thromboembolism at Low Risk for Major Bleeding

2016· article· en· W2234029494 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey A. Kline, David Jiménez, D. Mark Courtney, Juliana Ianus, Lynn Cao, Anthonie W.A. Lensing, Martin H. Prins, Philip S. Wells

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Emergency Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRivaroxabanPulmonary embolismDeep veinStroke (engine)Internal medicineSurgeryThrombosisWarfarinAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Outpatient treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) requires the selection of patients with a low risk of bleeding during the first few weeks of anticoagulation. The accuracy of four systems, originally derived for predicting bleeding in VTE treated with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), was assessed in VTE patients treated with rivaroxaban. METHODS: All patients treated with rivaroxaban in the multinational EINSTEIN deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) trials were included. Major bleeding was defined as ≥2 g/dL drop in hemoglobin or ≥2-unit blood transfusion, bleeding in critical area, or bleeding contributing to death. The authors examined the incidence of major bleeding in patients with low-risk assignment by the systems of Ruiz-Gimenez et al. (score = 0 to 1), Beyth et al. (score = 0), Kuijer et al. (score = 0), and Landefeld and Goldman. (score = 0). For clinical relevance, the definition of low risk for all scores except Kuijer includes all patients < 65 years with no prior bleeding history and no comorbid conditions (current cancer, renal insufficiency, diabetes mellitus, anemia, prior stroke, or myocardial infarction). RESULTS: A total of 4,130 patients (1,731 with DVT only, 2,399 with PE with or without DVT) were treated with rivaroxaban for a mean (±SD) duration of 207.6 (±95.9) days. Major bleeding occurred in 1.0% (40 of 4,130; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.7% to 1.3%) overall. Rates of major bleeding for low-risk patients during the entire treatment period were similar: Ruiz-Gimenez et al., 12 of 2,622 (0.5%; 95% CI = 0.2% to 0.8%); Beyth et al., nine of 2,249 (0.4%; 95% CI = 0.2% to 0.8%); Kuijer et al., four of 1,186 (0.3%; 95% CI = 0.1% to 0.9%); and Landefeld and Goldman, 11 of 2,407 (0.5%; 95% CI = 0.2% to 0.8%). At 30 days, major bleed rates for low-risk patients were as follows: Ruiz-Gimenez et al., five of 2,622 (0.2%; 95% CI = 0.1% to 0.4%); Beyth et al., five of 2,249 (0.2%; 95% CI = 0.1% to 0.5%); Kuijer et al., three of 1,186 (0.3%; 95% CI = 0.1% to 0.7%); and Landefeld and Goldman, seven of 2,407 (0.3%; 95% CI = 0.1% to 0.6%). No low-risk patient had a fatal bleed. CONCLUSIONS: Four scoring systems that use criteria obtained in routine clinical practice, derived to predict low bleeding risk with VKA treatment for VTE, identified patients with less than a 1% risk of major bleeding during full-course treatment with rivaroxaban.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations27
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic Emergency MedicineSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207