MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2992777502 · doi:10.1182/hematology.2019000074

Evidence-Based Minireview: Mortality and thrombosis in patients receiving prothrombin complex concentrates or andexanet alfa for the management of direct oral factor Xa inhibitor–associated major bleeding

2019· review· en· W2992777502 on OpenAlexaff
Miriam Kimpton, Deborah Siegal

Bibliographic record

VenueHematology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research InstituteOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRivaroxabanBleedStroke (engine)Intracerebral hemorrhageAtrial fibrillationThrombosisIntensive care medicineInternal medicineAnesthesiaSurgeryWarfarinSubarachnoid hemorrhage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 77-year-old man with atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2Vasc score of 6 for hypertension, age, diabetes, and previous stroke is brought to the emergency department with decreased level of consciousness. He is anticoagulated with rivaroxaban (a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor [FXaI]) and received his last dose about 4 hours before presentation. Urgent computed tomography of the head shows intracerebral hemorrhage. Because of his previous stroke, the patient's family is concerned about treating the bleed with pharmacological agents that may increase the risk of stroke. What are the risks of thrombosis and mortality related to the use of prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs) and andexanet alfa for patients with direct oral FXaI-associated major bleeding?

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.450
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.004 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHematologySame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207