Direct acting oral anticoagulants versus low molecular weight heparin for primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Low molecular weight heparin is currently the standard therapy for the primary prevention of thromboembolic disease in cancer patients. The use of direct-acting anticoagulants could be an alternative, but its efficacy and safety profile in these types of patients remains unclear. METHODS: We searched in Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health, which is maintained by screening multiple sources of information, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We extracted data from identified reviews, analyzed data from primary studies, performed a meta-analysis, and prepared a summary table of results using the GRADE method. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We identified four systematic reviews that together included two primary studies, of which both correspond to trials. We conclude that the use of direct-acting oral anticoagulants probably increases the outcome of major bleeding and likely slightly increases the risk of thromboembolic disease. No studies were found that evaluated the outcome of quality of life or mortality.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it