Management of direct factor Xa inhibitor–related major bleeding with prothrombin complex concentrate: a meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A targeted antidote for reversal of direct factor Xa (FXa) inhibitors is now available for clinical use in the United States, but it is costly and has limited availability. In a systematic review, we evaluated the safety and effectiveness of 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) as an alternative for managing direct FXa inhibitor-related major bleeding. A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials up to September 2018. No comparative studies were found. Ten case series with 340 patients who received PCC for direct FXa inhibitor-related major bleeding were included. The pooled proportion of patients with effective management of major bleeding was 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.76) in 2 studies using the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) criteria and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.63-0.92) in 8 studies that did not use the ISTH criteria; all-cause mortality was 0.16 (95% CI, 0.07-0.26), and thromboembolism rate was 0.04 (95% CI, 0.01-0.08). On the basis of evidence with very low certainty from single-arm case series, it is difficult to determine whether 4F-PCC in addition to cessation of direct oral FXa inhibitor is more effective than cessation of direct oral FXa inhibitor alone in patients with direct FXa inhibitor-related major bleeding.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it