Oral anticoagulants (NOAC and VKA) in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
EXPERT was an international, multicenter, prospective, uncontrolled, non-interventional cohort study in patients with pulmonary hypertension treated with riociguat. Patients were followed for 1-4 years, and the primary outcomes were adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs), including embolic/thrombotic and hemorrhagic events. Here we report data on patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) receiving a vitamin K antagonist (VKA; n = 683) or a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC; n = 198) at baseline. AEs and SAEs were reported in 438 patients (64.1%) and 257 patients (37.6%), respectively, in the VKA group, and in 135 patients (68.2%) and 74 patients (37.4%) in the NOAC group. Exposure-adjusted hemorrhagic event rates were similar in the two groups, while exposure-adjusted embolic and/or thrombotic event rates were higher in the NOAC group, although the numbers of events were small. Further studies are required to determine the long-term effects of anticoagulation strategies in CTEPH.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".