Apixaban <i>versus</i> enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after hip or knee replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to compare the effect of oral apixaban (a factor Xa inhibitor) with subcutaneous enoxaparin on major venous thromboembolism and major and non-major clinically relevant bleeding after total knee and hip replacement, we conducted a pooled analysis of two previously reported double-blind randomised studies involving 8464 patients. One group received apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily (plus placebo injection) starting 12 to 24 hours after operation, and the other received enoxaparin subcutaneously once daily (and placebo tablets) starting 12 hours (± 3) pre-operatively. Each regimen was continued for 12 days (± 2) after knee and 35 days (± 3) after hip arthroplasty. All outcomes were centrally adjudicated. Major venous thromboembolism occurred in 23 of 3394 (0.7%) evaluable apixaban patients and in 51 of 3394 (1.5%) evaluable enoxaparin patients (risk difference, apixaban minus enoxaparin, -0.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.2 to -0.3); two-sided p = 0.001 for superiority). Major bleeding occurred in 31 of 4174 (0.7%) apixaban patients and 32 of 4167 (0.8%) enoxaparin patients (risk difference -0.02% (95% CI -0.4 to 0.4)). Combined major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 182 (4.4%) apixaban patients and 206 (4.9%) enoxaparin patients (risk difference -0.6% (95% CI -1.5 to 0.3)). Apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily is more effective than enoxaparin 40 mg once daily without increased bleeding.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".