Risk of major bleeding during extended oral anticoagulation in patients with first unprovoked venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of anticoagulation after a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains controversial. Deciding to stop or continue anticoagulant therapy indefinitely after completing 3 to 6 months of initial treatment requires balancing the long-term risk of recurrent VTE if anticoagulation is stopped against the long-term risk of major bleeding if anticoagulation is continued. However, knowledge of the long-term risk for major bleeding events during extended anticoagulation in this patient population is limited. We plan to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the risk for major bleeding events during extended oral anticoagulation in patients with first unprovoked VTE. METHODS: Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be systematically searched with the assistance of an information specialist (from inception to March 1, 2019) to identify randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies reporting major bleeding during extended oral anticoagulation in patients with first unprovoked VTE, who have completed at least 3 months of initial anticoagulant therapy. Study selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction will be performed independently by at least two investigators. The number of major bleeding events and person-years of follow-up will be used to calculate the rate (events per 100 person-years) with its 95% confidence interval for each study cohort, during clinically relevant time periods of extended anticoagulant therapy. Results will be pooled using random effect meta-analysis. DISCUSSION: The planned systematic review and meta-analysis will provide reliable estimates of the risk for major bleeding events during extended anticoagulation. This information will help inform patient prognosis and assist clinicians with balancing the risks and benefits of treatment to guide management of unprovoked VTE. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019128597 .
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 | 0.041 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.003 |
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.
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".