MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

P5600History of venous thromboembolism is associated with higher risk for recurrent venous thromboembolism: insights from the APEX trial

2017· article· en· W2762071361 on OpenAlexaff
Megan K. Yee, Gerald Chi, Tarek Nafee, Serge Korjian, Yazan Daaboul, Robert A. Harrington, Samuel Z. Goldhaber, Russell D. Hull, Alex Gold, Alexander T Cohen, C. Michael Gibson

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVenous thromboembolismApex (geometry)Intensive care medicineCardiologyInternal medicineThrombosisAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Introduction: The APEX trial demonstrated a reduction in venous thromboembolism (VTE) among acutely medically ill subjects administered extended duration betrixaban compared to standard duration enoxaparin with no associated increase in major bleeds. The efficacy of extended duration betrixaban among patients with a history of VTE, who may be at even higher risk, remains unknown. Purpose: To assess the efficacy of extended duration betrixaban in subjects with and without a history of VTE. Methods: APEX randomized acutely medically ill patients with increased risk of VTE to either extended duration betrixaban or standard duration enoxaparin. The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), symptomatic DVT, non-fatal pulmonary embolism, or VTE related death. The modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population included subjects administered at least one dose of study drug. The primary efficacy outcome population (PEOP) included subjects evaluable for the composite. Outcomes were assessed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method and interaction with history of VTE was assessed using the Breslow-Day test.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→French-language works237,207→