MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

P3581Real-world effectiveness of stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation treated with rivaroxaban vs. phenprocoumon in Germany - insights from the reload study

2017· article· en· W2763273724 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hendrik Bonnemeier, M. Mundhenke, Taylor Mach, Maria Huelsebeck

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBayer CanadaStockholms Läns LandstingKarolinska InstitutetBayer
KeywordsMedicinePhenprocoumonRivaroxabanAtrial fibrillationStroke (engine)CardiologyInternal medicineWarfarin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Only limited evidence exists regarding the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus phenprocoumon in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients treated in a real world setting in Germany where phenprocoumon represents the predominantly prescribed VKA. Purpose: The RELOAD study is a retrospective study, using a new user approach based on a representative sample of a German insurance claims database to assess the real world comparative effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban vs. VKA prescribed in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) routine care patients in Germany. This abstract analyses baseline characteristics of the two cohorts. Methods: The study analyses NVAF-patients with an initial prescription of rivaroxaban or VKA between January 2012 and December 2015. Primary endpoints of this study will be the comparative risk of ischemic stroke (effectiveness) and intracranial haemorrhage (ICH, safety). Incidence rates and time-to-event analyses using adjusted multivariate Cox proportional hazard models and a 1:1 propensity score matching will be conducted to estimate hazard ratios and corresponding 95% confidence intervals.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→