Low Molecular Weight Heparin Administered once versus twice Daily in Patients with Venous Thromboembolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Background. Low molecular weight heparin is as effective and safe as unfractionated heparin for treatment of acute venous thromboembolism. It is uncertain whether low molecular weight heparin should be administered once-daily or twice-daily in this setting. Method. A meta-analysis of randomized studies which directly compared once- and twice-daily administration of low molecular weight heparin for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism was performed. A literature search was performed using Advanced Pub Med and the Cochrane library database, and abstracts from recent meetings were reviewed. Two investigators extracted data independently. Results. Five studies, involving 1522 patients, were eligible. There were no statistically significant differences in the frequencies of symptomatic (odds ratio, 0.85 in favor of once-daily therapy at three months, p = 0.6), and asymptomatic, recurrent venous thromboembolism; total and major bleeds (odds ratio, 1.16 in favor of twice-daily therapy at 10 days, p = 0.8); and death, at 10 days, as well as at three months of follow-up. Conclusion. Once- daily low molecular weight heparin appears to be as effective and safe as twice-daily administration for the acute treatment of venous thromboembolism. However, there is inadequate data from studies that directly compared once-daily and twice-daily administration to be able to exclude the possibility of a higher frequency of fatal bleeding with once-daily therapy.
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".