Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Obesity and Atrial Fibrillation: Position Paper of Italian National Association of Hospital Cardiologists (ANMCO)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of the direct oral anticoagulants dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban (DOACs) offers some major advantages over warfarin and other vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). One advantage is the possibility to use a fixed dose in normal-weight patients, overweight patients and patients with obesity. However, the "one size fits all" strategy raised a concern regarding the possibility to undertreat patients with a high body mass index. No randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have ever compared VKAs and DOACs in this population. We analyzed data from the literature on DOAC pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, results from the four pivotal phase III trials on non-valvular atrial fibrillation, retrospective observational studies and metanalyses. While we are aware of the limitation imposed by the absence of specific RCTs, we propose the position of the Italian Association of Hospital Cardiologists (ANMCO) on the use of DOACs in patients with obesity based on the existing evidence.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".