Long-Term Risk of Major Bleeding after Discontinuing Anticoagulation for Unprovoked Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The long-term risk of major bleeding after discontinuing anticoagulant therapy for a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence of major bleeding up to 5 years after discontinuing anticoagulation for a first unprovoked VTE. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL (from inception to January 2021) to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies reporting major bleeding after discontinuing anticoagulation in patients with a first unprovoked or weakly provoked VTE who had completed (IMAGE_)3 months of initial treatment. Unpublished data on major bleeding events and person-years were obtained from authors of included studies to calculate study-level incidence rates. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool results across studies. RESULTS: = 7) per 100 person-years was 0.35 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20-0.54) and 0.09 (95% CI: 0.05-0.15). The 5-year cumulative incidence of major bleeding was of 1.0% (95% CI: 0.4-2.4%). The case-fatality rate of major bleeding after discontinuing anticoagulation was 19.9% (95% CI: 10.6-31.1%). CONCLUSION: The risk of major bleeding once anticoagulants are discontinued in patients with a first unprovoked VTE is not zero. Estimates from this study can help clinicians counsel patients about the incremental risk of major bleeding with extended anticoagulation to guide decision making about treatment duration for unprovoked VTE.
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 | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.048 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".