A single-arm feasibility cohort study of rivaroxaban in antiphospholipid syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty regarding the safety and effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulant agents in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). We performed a multicenter feasibility study to examine our ability to identify and obtain consent from eligible APS patients and to obtain 95% adherence with daily rivaroxaban administration, in order to inform and power a larger study. Clinical outcomes of bleeding and thrombosis were also collected. METHODS: APS patients with prior venous thromboembolism (VTE) were recruited over 2 years (Oct 2014-Sept 2016) and followed for ≥ 1 year. Patients were assessed clinically every 3 months and had pill counts performed every 6 months. Numbers of patients fulfilling study criteria, as well as those consenting to participate, were tracked, and percentage adherence based on pill counts was recorded. These data were compared against the feasibility endpoints. Rates of thrombosis and bleeding were calculated. Criterion for feasibility was obtaining consent from 135 of 150 identified APS patients over 2 years. RESULTS: Ninety-six eligible patients were identified, and 14 declined participation. Eighty-two patients were followed for a mean of 19 months, representing 129.8 patient-years. Average rivaroxaban adherence was 95.0%. During follow-up, there were 4 thromboembolic events (2 cerebrovascular and 2 VTE). There were no episodes of major bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Adequately powered comparative trials using patient-important outcomes in APS are unlikely to be successful due to inability to recruit sufficient numbers of study subjects. This study does not reveal a higher than expected risk of recurrent thromboembolic disease compared to historical cohorts; however, this is an uncontrolled study in relatively low-risk APS patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT02116036, April 16, 2014.
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 | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".