Efficacy of dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with acute venous thromboembolism in the presence of thrombophilia: Findings from RE-COVER <sup>®</sup> , RE-COVER™ II, and RE-MEDY™
Bibliographic record
Abstract
were performed to compare dabigatran etexilate with warfarin for the treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with thrombophilia or antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS). There were no significant differences in symptomatic VTE/VTE-related deaths between dabigatran etexilate and warfarin in patients with or without thrombophilia. All bleeding event categories were less frequent with dabigatran etexilate than with warfarin, regardless of whether patients had thrombophilia, no thrombophilia, or were not tested. However, these differences did not reach significance in every group. In patients with APS, there was no significant difference in VTE/VTE-related deaths between the two treatment arms. Rates of bleeding events tended to be lower with dabigatran etexilate than with warfarin, reaching statistical significance for any bleeding event. In conclusion, the efficacy and safety of dabigatran etexilate were not significantly affected by the presence of thrombophilia or APS. ClinicalTrials.gov RECOVER IDENTIFIER NCT00291330; RECOVER II IDENTIFIER NCT00680186; RE-MEDY IDENTIFIER NCT00329238.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".