The impact of ruxolitinib on thrombosis in patients with polycythemia vera and myelofibrosis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Food and Drug Administration approval of ruxolitinib for treatment of myelofibrosis and polycythemia vera has changed the management of patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms. Yet the impact of this therapy on risk of thrombosis, a major cause of morbidity and mortality among these patients, remains unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of ruxolitinib on the risk of thrombosis among patients with polycythemia vera or myelofibrosis. Following identification of randomized controlled trials comparing ruxolitinib to standard care or placebo, rates of thrombosis, including venous and arterial thrombosis, were analyzed using fixed effects models. Rates of thrombosis were significantly lower among patients treated with ruxolitinib [risk ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23-0.88]. Subgroup analysis of venous and arterial thrombosis demonstrated similar risk ratios, which did not reach statistical significance (risk ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.14-1.48 and RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18-1.01, respectively). In conclusion, our analysis suggests that JAK2 inhibition with ruxolitinib decreases the risk of arterial and/or venous thrombosis in patients with polycythemia vera or myelofibrosis. These findings will require confirmation in a prospective study.
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.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 it