Protocol for a modelling study to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of indefinite anticoagulant therapy for first unprovoked venous thromboembolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Deciding whether to stop or extend anticoagulant therapy indefinitely after completing at least 3 months of initial treatment for a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a challenge for clinicians, patients and policy makers. Guidelines suggest an indefinite duration of anticoagulant therapy in these patients, yet its benefits, harms and costs have not been formally assessed. The aim of this proposed modelling study is to assess the differences in clinical benefits, harms and costs of stopping versus continuing anticoagulant therapy indefinitely for a first unprovoked VTE. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will develop a probabilistic Markov model, adopting a 1-month cycle length and a lifetime horizon, to estimate life-years, quality-adjusted life-years, costs and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for a simulated population of patients with a first unprovoked VTE who will receive indefinite duration of anticoagulant therapy versus a population who will not receive extended treatment after completing 3 months of initial anticoagulant therapy. The economic evaluation will adopt a third-party payer perspective relating to a Canadian publicly funded healthcare system. Estimates for the probability of relevant clinical events will be informed by systematic reviews and meta-analyses, while costs and utility values will be obtained from published Canadian sources. Stratified analyses based on sex, age and site of initial VTE will also be performed to identify subgroups of patients with a first unprovoked VTE in whom continuing anticoagulant therapy indefinitely might prove to be clinically beneficial and cost-effective over stopping treatment. We will also conduct sensitivity and scenario analyses to assess robustness of study findings to changes in individual or groups of key parameters. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not applicable for this study. The results will be disseminated through presentations at relevant conferences and in a manuscript that will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.
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 | 0.045 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.187 | 0.026 |
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".