Direct oral factor Xa inhibitors for the prevention of non-central nervous systemic embolism patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation - a systematic review and meta-analysis
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
BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of direct oral factor Xa inhibitors for preventing non-central nervous systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, EUROPUBMED, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from July 1st 1990 to April 1st, 2015. Randomised controlled trials were included if they reported the outcomes of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation treated with a direct oral factor Xa inhibitors compared to a vitamin K antagonist. The primary outcome was objectively confirmed as non-central nervous systemic embolism and ischaemic stroke was the secondary outcome. The random-effects model odds ratio was used as the outcome measure. RESULTS: Our initial search identified 987 relevant articles, of which three satisfied our inclusion criteria and were included. Compared to vitamin K antagonists targeting an INR between 2 and 3, direct oral factor Xa inhibitors alone did not reduce the incidence of non-central nervous systemic embolism [OR 0.63 (95 % CI 0.30 - 1.35)] or ischaemic stroke [OR 1.06 (95 % CI 0.86 - 1.32)]. CONCLUSIONS: As a drug class, direct oral factor Xa inhibitors do not reduce the incidence of non-central nervous systemic embolism (or ischaemic stroke) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Selecting drugs for the prevention of non-central nervous systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation should be based on individual drug efficacy data, rather than class data.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| 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