MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2980097577 · doi:10.1182/blood.v126.23.430.430

Switching to Warfarin after 6-Month Completion of Anticoagulant Treatment for Cancer-Associated Thrombosis

2015· article· en· W2980097577 on OpenAlexaff
Chatree Chai‐Adisaksopha, Alfonso Iorio, Mark Crowther, Javier de Miguel‐Díez, E. Salgado, Marija Zdraveska, Manuel Monréal

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonSt. Joseph's HospitalMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWarfarinHazard ratioCumulative incidenceLow molecular weight heparinConfidence intervalAnticoagulantInternal medicineThrombosisSurgeryProportional hazards modelIncidence (geometry)Cohort

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is considered to be an anticoagulation therapy for the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis. The duration of treatment is recommended to maintain at least 3-6 months after the diagnosis. However, the data on continuing LMWH treatment beyond six months remains unclear. Methods: Consecutive cancer-associated thrombosis patients who were enrolled in RIETE Registry were evaluated. We systematically selected the patients who completed treatment with LMWH for 6 months. The patients were divided into two groups whether they continued to receive LMWH or switched to warfarin. The main outcomes were recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), major bleeding and total bleeding. Survival curves were generated using Kaplan-Meier method and the curves were compared using the log-rank test. Hazard ratio (HR) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using Cox-proportional hazard (PH) model. Outcomes: of the 1,502 eligible patients who completed 6-month anticoagulant therapy, 763 patients continued to received LMWH and 739 switched to warfarin. There was no significant difference in terms of recurrent VTE between two study groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI]; 0.44-1.02, p=0.06), Figure 1. The cumulative incidence of major bleeding was 2.6% in LMWH group and 2.7% in warfarin group (HR 1.05, 95%CI; 0.79-1.55, p=0.79), Figure 2. The cumulative incidence of total bleeding was 6.7% in LMWH group and 7.0% in warfarin group (HR 0.92, 95%CI; 0.62-1.37, p=0.70). Conclusions: In patients with cancer-associated thrombosis who completed 6-month of anticoagulation therapy, switching to warfarin is not associated with increase in recurrent VTE, major bleeding or total bleeding when compared to continuing LMWH. Warfarin is an acceptable alternative anticoagulant in cancer-associated thrombosis patients who do not tolerate long-term treatment with LMWH. Disclosures Monreal: Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; boehringer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; daichii: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→French-language works237,207→