Risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism according to baseline risk factor profiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The optimal duration of anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism (VTE) is uncertain. In this prespecified analysis, we used data from 2 randomized trials, which compared once-daily rivaroxaban (20 mg or 10 mg) with aspirin (100 mg) or placebo for extended VTE treatment to estimate the risk of recurrence according to baseline risk factor profiles. Index VTE events were centrally classified as unprovoked, or provoked by major transient or persistent, or minor transient or persistent risk factors, and rates of recurrence at 1 year were calculated. A total of 2832 patients received rivaroxaban; 1131 received aspirin, and 590 received placebo. With unprovoked VTE, rates of recurrence in the 1173 patients given rivaroxaban, the 468 given aspirin, and the 243 given placebo were 2.0%, 5.9%, and 10.0%, respectively. There were no recurrences in patients with VTE provoked by major transient risk factors. With VTE provoked by minor persistent risk factors, recurrence rates in the 1184 patients given rivaroxaban, the 466 given aspirin, and the 248 given placebo were 2.4%, 4.5%, and 10.7%, respectively. For patients with minor transient risk factors, recurrence rates were 0.4% in the 268 patients given rivaroxaban, 4.2% in the 121 given aspirin, and 7.1% in the 56 given placebo. Recurrence rates in patients with VTE provoked by minor persistent or minor transient risk factors were not significantly lower than that with unprovoked VTE (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-1.16; and HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.32-1.30, respectively). Therefore, such patients may also benefit from extended anticoagulation therapy.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".