Treatment Challenges in Venous Thromboembolism: An Appraisal of Rivaroxaban Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) presents a continuing clinical burden to healthcare systems and there are patient groups for whom VTE management is challenging. Depending on the patient profile, the optimal duration of anticoagulation for VTE treatment can be unclear. EINSTEIN CHOICE was a Phase III, randomized, double-blind trial that compared the safety and efficacy of two once-daily (od) doses of the direct, oral factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (20 and 10 mg) with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA; 100 mg daily) for prevention of recurrent VTE. Extended therapy with rivaroxaban at either dose was more effective than ASA at preventing recurrent VTE without increasing bleeding risk. Another group that is challenging to treat in the context of VTE is patients with cancer-associated thrombosis. Cancer is associated with a hypercoagulable state, while cancer treatment itself may increase VTE risk. Evidence supporting the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with cancer is growing through specifically designed studies. Cancer Associated thrombosis-expLoring soLutions for patIentS through Treatment and prevention with rivarOxaban (CALLISTO) is an international research program exploring the role of rivaroxaban for the prevention and treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis. Here, we present overviews of three CALLISTO studies: PRO-LAPS II, CASTA-DIVA and COSIMO. Currently available and anticipated results from studies in a variety of patients at risk of or with VTE will provide valuable insights and seek to optimize future VTE management.
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 | 0.045 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".