MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4292433546

Dabigatran: life-threatening bleeding.

2013· article· en· W4292433546 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDabigatranMedicineWarfarinIdarucizumabRivaroxabanDirect thrombin inhibitorConcomitantAntidoteProthrombin complex concentrateAtrial fibrillationAnticoagulantPharmacovigilanceIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicineAdverse effectToxicity
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dabigatran is an oral anticoagulant that inhibits thrombin but not vitamin K. In mid-2012, there was no commercial test to monitor its anticoagulant effect, nor an antidote. In mid-November 2011, the European pharmacovigilance database contained 256 reports of haemorrhagic deaths attributed to dabigatran. Nearly 800 cases of severe haemorrhage have been reported in Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the United States. A randomised trial comparing dabigatran with warfarin, and 5 studies of several hundred serious bleeding events, identified factors that increased the risk of bleeding. They included even mild renal failure, age over 75 years, body weight less than 60 kg, switching between anticoagulants, opening the dabigatran capsules before ingestion, and concomitant use of drugs that interact with dabigatran. A dabigatran dose below 220 mg per day does not protect patients from the risk of haemorrhage. In practice, dabigatran should be reserved for patients with a high risk of thrombosis in whom the target INR cannot be maintained on antivitamin K therapy alone. The risk of bleeding must be taken into account, renal function must be closely monitored, and patients and their carers must be correctly informed about this risk.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.023

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→