Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: For treatment of left ventricular thrombus (LVT), current guidelines recommend vitamin K-antagonists (VKA) targeting an INR goal of 2.0 to 2.5 for up to 6 months, guided by repeated echocardiography.So far, use of direct oral anticoagulans (DOAC) for treatment of LVT had only be reported anecdotally and there remains uncertainty about their efficacy in this setting.We aimed to compare outcomes among patients treated DOACs versus VKAs included in a multicenter registry.Methods: From an echocardiography database including three teaching hospitals in Switzerland, patients, which were hospitalized and diagnosed with LVTs between 2015 and 2018, were identified and stratified according to their anticoagulation management.Echocardiograms and outcomes were assessed blinded for underlying anticoagulation regimen.Results: Totally, 53 patients were included, 39 (74%) males, mean age 63+/-.LVTs were found in 25 (47%) patients with a recent myocardial infarction, 7 (13%) pa-Cardiovascular
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.708 | 0.295 |
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".