MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2934397726 · doi:10.1002/ajh.25475

Reversal of direct oral anticoagulants: Guidance from the Anticoagulation Forum

2019· review· en· W2934397726 on OpenAlexafffund
Adam Cuker, Allison Burnett, Darren M. Triller, Mark Crowther, Jack Ansell, Elizabeth M. Van Cott, Diane Wirth, Scott Kaatz

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Hematology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersJanssen PharmaceuticalsSpark TherapeuticsShionogiOchsner HealthAsahi Kasei Pharma CorporationBristol-Myers Squibb CanadaThomas Jefferson UniversityShireCSL BehringUniversity of WashingtonJohns Hopkins UniversityHenry Ford Health SystemAlexion PharmaceuticalsLEO Pharma Research FoundationPfizerHeart and Stroke Foundation of CanadaBayerKaiser PermanenteNovo NordiskServier Canada
KeywordsRivaroxabanDabigatranIdarucizumabApixabanMedicineIntensive care medicineStewardship (theology)WarfarinAtrial fibrillationInternal medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two specific reversal agents for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been approved in the United States: idarucizumab for dabigatran reversal and andexanet alfa for apixaban and rivaroxaban reversal. Non-specific prohemostatic agents such as prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) and activated PCC have also been used for DOAC reversal. The goal of this document is to provide comprehensive guidance from the Anticoagulation Forum, a North American organization of anticoagulation providers, regarding use of DOAC reversal agents. We discuss indications for reversal, provide guidance on how the individual reversal agents should be administered, and offer suggestions for stewardship at the health system level.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations313
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of HematologySame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207