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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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