MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2986415010 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-127106

One-Year Outcomes with Once or Twice Daily Enoxaparin

2019· article· en· W2986415010 on OpenAlexaffabout
Adi J. Klil‐Drori, Sara Nazha, Marlène Gharib, Sylvie Perreault, Vicky Tagalakis

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalUniversité de MontréalSanofi (Canada)Health Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiscontinuationEnoxaparin sodiumCohortPopulationInternal medicineLow molecular weight heparinThrombosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Enoxaparin given once daily (QD) for thrombotic disorders is less burdensome than twice-daily (BID) dosing. However, long-term outcomes when enoxaparin given as QD monotherapy are unknown. Methods: We did a population-based cohort study. New users of enoxaparin alone (2005-2014) were identified in the linked healthcare databases of Quebec, Canada, and followed up for up to one year. The number of dispensed syringes divided by prescription length determined QD or BID enoxaparin by intention to treat. Cumulative rates of major bleeding and re-treatment with anticoagulants at one year were compared between enoxaparin groups. Re-treatment was initiation of anticoagulation after at least 30 days of no dispensed anticoagulants. The duration of enoxaparin monotherapy was the sum of prescriptions until discontinuation. Results: The cohort included 504 patients; QD and BID enoxaparin users were 445 and 59, respectively. Mean (SD) age was 78.0 (6.6) years, 43.8% were males, and 61.9% had cancer. At 12 months, major bleeding occurred in 21 (4.7%) and 4 (6.8%) among QD and BID enoxaparin users, respectively (Figure 1A, P = 0.49). Re-treatment with anticoagulants occurred in 37 (9.6%) and 5 (9.4%) of QD and BID users, respectively (Figure 1B, P = 0.98). The duration of enoxaparin monotherapy was on average 13.9 (95% CI, 4.4-23.4, P = 0.005) days longer with QD vs BID use. Conclusions: Monotherapy with QD enoxaparin was common and longer than BID enoxaparin with no apparent differences in bleeding or re-treatment with anticoagulants. Figure 1 Disclosures Klil-Drori: Sanofi Canada: Research Funding. Nazha:Sanofi Canada: Employment. Gharib:Sanofi Canada: Employment. Perreault:Sanofi Canada: Research Funding. Tagalakis:Servier: Other: participated on ad boards; Bayer: Other: participated on ad boards; Pfizer: Other: participated on ad boards; Sanofi Aventis: Other: investigator initiated grant;participated on ad boards; BMS-Pfizer: Other: participated on ad boards.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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