Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate for the treatment of oral factor Xa inhibitor-associated bleeding: a meta-analysis of fixed versus variable dosing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The optimal dosing strategy of four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) to treat oral factor Xa (FXa) inhibitor-associated bleeding has not been established. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of fixed versus variable 4F-PCC dosing for the management of FXa inhibitor-associated bleeding. Methods: A systematic literature search and meta-analysis of clinical studies was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception to January 2022. The primary outcomes included hemostatic effectiveness, mortality, and thromboembolic events. Secondary outcomes included 4F-PCC usage, total length of stay in hospital and in intensive care units, and time to 4F-PCC administration. The pooled incidence or mean was calculated using a random-effects model and compared between the 2 dosing strategies. Results: < 0.001). Conclusions: A fixed-dosing strategy appears to be a safe and effective alternative to variable weight-based dosing and was associated with lower 4F-PCC usage. However, direct comparative studies are needed to confirm these results.
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 | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.056 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".