New Anticoagulants for Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors regret the following two errors published in the above article in Seminars in Thrmbosis and Hemostasis , Volume 35, Number 5: On page 515, line five of the abstract, “These drugs have minimal protein binding and predictable pharmacokinetics that allow fixed dosing without laboratory monitoring and are being compared with vitamin K antagonists or aspirin in phase III clinical trials”, is incorrect. This line should read “These drugs have predictable pharmacokinetics that allow fixed dosing without laboratory monitoring, and are being compared with vitamin K antagonists or aspirin in phase III clinical trials”. On page 516, column one, under heading “New Anticoagulants”, line three, “The new anticoagulants are all small synthetic molecules with advantages that include minimal protein binding, predictable pharmacokinetics, and fixed dosing without the need for laboratory monitoring”, is incorrect. This line should read “The new anticoagulants are all small synthetic molecules with advantages that include predictable pharmacokinetics, and fixed dosing without the need for laboratory monitoring”.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.008 |
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".