MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807444255 · doi:10.1002/rth2.12121

Extended anticoagulation for unprovoked venous thromboembolism

2018· review· en· W2807444255 on OpenAlexaff
Lana A. Castellucci, Kerstin de Wit, David García, Thomas L. Ortel, Grégoire Le Gal

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
FundersPatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
KeywordsMedicineRivaroxabanApixabanVenous thromboembolismVitamin kIntensive care medicineEdoxabanWarfarinThrombosisInternal medicineAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After completing anticoagulation therapy for acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), patients with unprovoked VTE are at increased risk of recurrent thrombotic events. Recent studies suggest a risk of nearly 10% in the first year after stopping anticoagulants and 30% at 8 years. Therefore, it is important to consider extended anticoagulation for secondary prevention in these high-risk patients. While several oral anticoagulants are available for this purpose, there is limited information available regarding the optimal agent to minimize bleeding risks and maximize efficacy at VTE prevention. This review article summarizes the evidence available for Vitamin-K antagonists (VKAs) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for extended treatment of VTE. We also introduce the COVET trial, the first head-to-head comparison of VKAs to DOACs, rivaroxaban and apixaban, for extended management of unprovoked VTE.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.366
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch and Practice in Thrombosis and HaemostasisSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207