MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3149095054 · doi:10.4021/jmc1400w

A Case of Pulmonary Embolism on Dabigatran

2013· article· en· W3149095054 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tandon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Cases · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDabigatranRivaroxabanWarfarinAtrial fibrillationDirect thrombin inhibitorPulmonary embolismThrombusIntensive care medicineVenous thromboembolismInternal medicineThrombosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well known that hospitalized medical patients are at higher risk for the development of venous thromboembolism. As a result patients are placed on standard prophylactic anticoagulation. As newer anticoagulants are coming to the market patients on these novel oral agents are continued on them instead of being transitioned to the standard therapies.Dabigatran, one of the newer agents, is an oral direct thrombin inhibitor (DTI) approved for anticoagulation in non-valvular atrial fibrillation and DVT prophylaxis in post-operative patients after knee and hip surgeries. Dabigatran is an effective anticoagulant because DTI’s suppress thrombus growth []. We report a case of extensive pulmonary emboli in a patient taking dabigatran. Although dabigatran is not currently approved for DVT/VTE prophylaxis in the hospitalized medical patient, recent studies demonstrate its non-inferiority compared with warfarin in the prevention of recurrent VTE. In light of this, we argue that our patient constitutes a treatment failure. J Med Cases. 2013;4(8):550-551 doi: https://doi.org/10.4021/jmc1400w

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designCase report
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Cases→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→