Boosting protection for patients with non-acute cardiovascular disease: a focus on antithrombotic regimen (a consensus expert opinion from the Egyptian Society of Cardiology working group of thrombosis and prevention)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Till the moment of this document writing, no Egyptian consensus is there to guide selection of additional antithrombotic in stable patients with established CVD. Despite use of lifestyle measures and statins, those patients with established CVD still face a considerable burden of residual risk. MAIN BODY: With the evolvement of evidence-based medicine, there have been a lot of recommendations to use additional antithrombotic medications to maximize protection for those patients. Accordingly, the Egyptian Society of Cardiology working group of thrombosis and prevention took the responsibility of providing an expert consensus on the current recommendations for using antithrombotic medications to maximize protection in stable patients with established CVD. For stable patients with established CVD, in addition to proper lifestyle measures and appropriate dose statins, we recommend long-term aspirin therapy. In patients who are unable to take aspirin and in those with a history of gastrointestinal bleeding, clopidogrel is a reasonable alternative. CONCLUSIONS: For some stable atherosclerotic CVD patients who are at high risk of cardiovascular events and at low risk for bleeding, a regimen of rivaroxaban and aspirin might be taken into consideration.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".