Anticoagulantes orais diretos para o tratamento da trombose venosa profunda: revisão de revisões sistemáticas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of limitations of standard therapy with warfarin for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) have been established. This overview of systematic reviews presents the baseline results for efficacy and safety of the new direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) thrombin inhibitors, and activated factor X (Xa) inhibitors in patients with DVT. Searches were run on PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Twenty-three studies were retrieved, and one systematic review was judged eligible. This review scored maximum according to AMSTAR criteria and included 7,596 patients for analysis of thrombin inhibitors and 16,356 patients for analysis of factor Xa inhibitors. The results of the meta-analysis indicate that DOACs are similar for DVT treatment when compared to standard treatment with warfarin. The incidence of major bleeding is somewhat lower in patients treated with factor Xa inhibitors and similar to standard therapy when treated with direct thrombin inhibitors.
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 | 0.012 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".