Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients treated with anticoagulants have an unavoidable risk of bleeding complications. There are, for all oral anticoagulants, several potential options for management of major bleeding. The first action is to assess the causative role of the anticoagulant in the current bleeding. Supportive measures have been assessed in several post hoc analyses of the phase III pivotal trials with the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs). Those results will be reviewed here together with emerging data on the efficacy and safety of the specific antidotes idarucizumab (for dabigatran) and andexanet-α (for factor Xa inhibitors). Regular or activated prothrombin complex concentrates are also evaluated and might have a role as alternatives for management of NOAC-associated major bleeding if the "specific" antidote is not available. Once hemostasis has been achieved, it is imperative to assess the possibility and timing of resumption of anticoagulation, as these patients have an inherent prothrombotic state and a non-negligible proportion of patients will have thromboembolic complications during the first month after the hemorrhage. Many factors will have to be taken into account for this decision and unfortunately the guidelines in this respect are very weak if at all available. This review will hopefully provide some assistance in the management of major bleeding and posthemorrhage care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".