In high-risk patients with cancer, thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban did not reduce VTE events at 180 days
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ACP Journal Club18 June 2019In high-risk patients with cancer, thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban did not reduce VTE events at 180 daysAndrea Cervi, MD, James Douketis, MDAndrea Cervi, MDMcMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (A.C., J.D.)Search for more papers by this author, James Douketis, MDMcMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (A.C., J.D.)Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/ACPJ201906180-067 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Source CitationKhorana AA, Soff GA, Kakkar AK, et al; CASSINI Investigators. Rivaroxaban for thromboprophylaxis in high-risk ambulatory patients with cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:720-8 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30786186Clinical Impact RatingsOncology: References1 Farge D, Bounameaux H, Brenner B, et al. International clinical practice guidelines including guidance for direct oral anticoagulants in the treatment and prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:e452-66. [PMID: 27733271] Google Scholar2 Lyman GH, Bohlke K, Khorana AA, et al; American Society of Clinical Oncology. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment in patients with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update 2014. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:654-6. [PMID: 25605844] Google Scholar3 Carrier M, Abou-Nassar K, Mallick R, et al; AVERT Investigators. Apixaban to prevent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:711-9. [PMID: 30511879] Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (A.C., J.D.)This article was published at Annals.org on 4 June 2019. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics 18 June 2019Volume 170, Issue 12Page: JC67KeywordsDeep vein thrombosisHemorrhageIntent to treat analysisLymphomaOutpatientsProphylaxisPulmonary embolismSafetyUltrasound imagingVenous thromboembolism ePublished: 18 June 2019 Issue Published: 18 June 2019 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2019 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.003 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.009 |
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".