Novel oral anticoagulant management issues for the stroke clinician
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Four nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are approved for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). AIMS: In this review, we assemble available evidence for the best management of ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke patients in the context of NOAC use. SUMMARY OF REVIEW: NOACs provide predictable anticoagulation with fixed dosages. The direct thrombin inhibitor dabigatran and direct factor Xa inhibitors apixaban, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban are all noninferior to warfarin for the prevention of ischemic stroke and systemic embolism and are associated with reduced incidence of intracranial hemorrhage. While these agents offer treatment options for NVAF patients, they also present challenges specific to the clinician managing cerebrovascular disease patients. CONCLUSIONS: We summarize available evidence and current approaches to the initiation, dosing, monitoring and potential reversal of NOACs in stroke patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".