Unfavourable effects of medically indicated oral anticoagulants on survival in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Procoagulant and antifibrinolytic activity has been associated with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF); however, investigation of anticoagulant therapy in IPF has suggested deleterious effects. This post hoc analysis evaluated the effect of medically indicated anticoagulation on mortality and other clinical outcomes in IPF.Patients randomised to placebo (n=624) from three controlled trials in IPF were analysed by oral anticoagulant use. End-points included all-cause and IPF-related mortality, disease progression, hospitalisation, and adverse events, over 1 year.At baseline, 32 (5.1%) patients randomised to placebo were prescribed anticoagulants for non-IPF indications, 29 (90.6%) of whom received warfarin. Unadjusted analyses demonstrated significantly higher all-cause and IPF-related mortality at 1 year in baseline anticoagulant users versus nonusers (15.6% versus 6.3%, p=0.039 and 15.6% versus 3.9%, p=0.002, respectively). In multivariate analyses, baseline use of anticoagulants was an independent predictor of IPF-related mortality (hazard ratio 4.7, p=0.034), but not other end-points. Rates of bleeding and cardiac events did not differ significantly between groups. In an exploratory analysis, anticoagulant use at any time during the study was an independent predictor of all end-points.This post hoc analysis suggests that anticoagulants used for non-IPF indications may have unfavourable effects in IPF patients. Future studies are needed to explore this relationship further.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".