Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The first study on the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) with dabigatran (RE-COVER) was published in 2009. Three additional phase III trials on acute VTE therapy and extended treatment were recently presented. This article reviews the data and, where applicable, compares them with other novel oral anticoagulants, particularly rivaroxaban, for which all phase III trials have been published. RECENT FINDINGS: A twin study to RE-COVER (RE-COVER II) confirmed that dabigatran is not inferior to warfarin regarding efficacy and confers a lower risk for clinically relevant bleeding in the treatment of acute VTE for 6 months. Two studies on the extended treatment of VTE with dabigatran showed that the results for efficacy and safety can be extrapolated to another 16 months (mean) of treatment (RE-MEDY) and that dabigatran reduces the risk of recurrence by 90% compared with placebo (RE-SONATE). In the latter case, there is an increase of the risk for clinically relevant bleeding. SUMMARY: Dabigatran offers an alternative to warfarin for treatment of VTE without a need for coagulation monitoring or dose adjustments. Management of patients with VTE could thereby be simplified. Extended treatment might be considered more often for patients at higher risk of recurrence.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".