MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

P1669: DIRECT ORAL ANTICOAGULANTS VS LOW MOLECULAR WEIGHT HEPARIN IN THE MANAGEMENT OF PATIENTS WITH PRIMARY OR METASTATIC BRAIN TUMOURS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2023· review· en· W4386086990 on OpenAlexaff
Wenhui Yu, Jayhan Kherani, Lucy Zhao, Daniel Tham, Allen Li, H.Y. Li, Ali Eshaghpour, Mark Crowther

Bibliographic record

VenueHemaSphere · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisLow molecular weight heparinRandomized controlled trialThrombosisMalignancyInternal medicineBrain metastasisHeparinPopulationOncologyIntensive care medicineCancerMetastasis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Topic: 34. Thrombosis and vascular biology - Biology & Translational Research Background: Patients with primary or metastatic brain tumours are at increased risk of thrombosis like other malignancies. Low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is the mainstay of current treatment/prophylaxis. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly used for various indications in the population of patients with malignancy. There is limited safety data for patients with primary or metastatic brain tumors as they were excluded from the large trials. Aims: To compare safety and efficacy of DOACs to LMWH in patients with primary and secondary brain tumors. Methods: We conducted a search of MEDLINE and Embase from inception to January 2023. We included randomized and non-randomized cohort studies that compared DOACs to LMWH. Two reviewers screened and extracted data at title/abstract and full-text levels individually and in duplicate. Baseline patient characteristics, details of brain tumour(s), and anticoagulation regimens were extracted. The primary safety outcome was intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Data was meta-analyzed using random-effects model. Results: Of 287 articles capture in our search, six non-randomized studies (n = 565 patients) were included for analysis. 56% of patients had secondary intracranial tumors with the average duration of anticoagulation being 190 days for DOACs and 200 days for LMWH. There is a trend towards decreased ICH with DOACs as compared to LMWH(OR: 0.55 [95% CI - 0.29,1.07] I2 = 0%) Summary/Conclusion: There is a trend for increased safety of DOACs as compared to LMWH with regards to ICH. Use of DOAC in patients with brain tumours may be favored given their ease of administration. Randomized studies are needed to confirm these findings. Only preliminary analysis has been done thus far. Further planned analysis of these studies includes efficacy outcomes, as well as overall bleeding outcomes. Keywords: Anticoagulation, Oral anticoagulant, Anticoagulants

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.628
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHemaSphereSame topicBrain Metastases and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207