Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the past 7 years, results from phase III trials comparing nonvitamin antagonist K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or with placebo, including 34,900 patients, have been published. Recent guidelines have been updated and now suggest treatment with NOACs rather than with VKA. Other updates in the guidelines concern the initial thrombolytic treatment for selected patients with deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism as well as the possibility of withholding anticoagulation for minimal venous thromboembolism. The optimal duration of anticoagulation after an unprovoked event is still debatable, depending on values and preferences assigned to recurrent thromboembolism versus bleeding complications. The choice is essentially between a short duration of 3 or perhaps 6 months for extensive thromboembolism and indefinite duration. Several clinical prediction rules have been developed to aid in this choice but they all address only the risk of recurrent thrombosis without weighing in the risk of bleeding. This review provides an update on recent systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and guidelines on the treatment of venous thromboembolism.
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) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".