Evaluating coagulation tests in patients with atrial fibrillation using direct oral anticoagulants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four direct oral anticoagulants (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban) have been shown to be at least as effective and safe as warfarin for the prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation and the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism. Although they are administered in fixed doses without routine coagulation monitoring, measurement of anticoagulant effect or drug levels may be useful to determine if: anticoagulant effect is present in patients who are bleeding or require an urgent procedure or thrombolysis; levels are within usual on-therapy range in patients with recurrent thromboembolism during treatment; and levels are outside of the usual on-therapy range in patients with overdose or with extreme clinical characteristics. Traditional coagulation assays are widely available but lack sensitivity to detect clinically relevant anticoagulant effects, and lack accuracy in quantitating drug levels. Specific drug assays are less widely available but can accurately measure drug levels and should be preferred.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".