Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emerging class of agents targeting factor XI/XIa offers the paradigm-shifting possibility of ‘haemostasis-sparing anticoagulation’: protection from stroke and other thromboembolic events with a benign bleeding profile. With three investigational agents now into late-phase development, two presentations delivered at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2024, held in London, UK, have added to our knowledge of this innovative and diverse class. The first of these presentations shared the full data from the OCEANIC-AF Phase III trial, in which the small molecule factor XIa inhibitor asundexian was compared with the factor Xa inhibitor apixaban for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation, and reviewed the probable reasons for the failure of this trial to meet its efficacy endpoint. The second presentation was a secondary analysis from the AZALEA-TIMI 71 Phase II trial, in which the safety of the monoclonal antibody factor XI inhibitor abelacimab was compared with that of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing invasive procedures. This article is based on a post-ESC interview with Jeffrey I. Weitz, Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry and Biomedical Sciences at McMaster University, Canada; Canada Research Chair (Tier 1) in Thrombosis and the Heart and Stroke Foundation; J.F. Mustard Chair in Cardiovascular Research; Executive Director of the Thrombosis and Atherosclerosis Research Institute (TaARI), in Hamilton, Canada; and Secretary General of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH). It assesses the current status and future prospects of the factor XI/XIa inhibitor class in light of these recent developments.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.007 |
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".