Antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing oral surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The number of patients under antiplatelet therapy (APT) continues to raise as current recommendations foster this practice. Although some recommendations to manage this treatment during oral surgery procedures exist, these have methodological shortcomings that preclude them from being conclusive. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the best current evidence was carried out; The Cochrane Library, EMBASE and MEDLINE databases were searched for Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) concerning patients undergoing oral surgery with APT, other relevant sources were searched manually. RESULTS: 5 RCTs met the Inclusion criteria. No clear tendency was observed (RR= 0.97 CI 95%: 0,41-2,34; p=0,09; I2= 51%), moreover, they weren't clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS: According to these findings and as bleeding is a manageable complication it seems unreasonable to undermine the APT, putting the patient in danger of a thrombotic event and its high inherent morbidity, which isn't comparable in severity and manageability to the former."
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".