Lead-In Parenteral Anticoagulation Prior to Direct Oral Anticoagulation for Cerebral Venous Thrombosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Growing evidence suggests that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) may be suitable for cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT). The optimal strategy regarding lead-in parenteral anticoagulation (PA) prior to DOAC is unknown. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of the retrospective ACTION-CVT study, we compared patients treated with DOACs as part of routine care: those given "very early" DOAC (no PA), "early" (<5 days PA) and "delayed" (5-21 days PA). We compared baseline characteristics and outcomes between the very early/early and delayed groups. The primary outcome was a composite of day-30 CVT recurrence/extension, new peripheral venous thromboembolism, cerebral edema and intracranial hemorrhage. RESULTS: Of 231 patients, 11.7% had very early DOAC, 64.5% early (median [IQR] 2 [1-2] days) and 23.8% delayed (5 [5-6] days). More patients had severe clinical/radiological presentations in the delayed group; more patients had isolated headaches in the very early/early group. Outcomes were better in the very early/early groups (90-day modified Rankin Scale of 0-2; 94.3% vs. 83.9%). Primary outcome events were rare and did not differ significantly between groups (2.4% vs. 2.1% delayed; adjusted HR 1.49 [95%CI 0.17-13.11]). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients receiving DOAC for CVT as part of routine care, >75% had <5 days of PA. Those with very early/early initiation of DOAC had less severe clinical presentations. Low event rates and baseline differences between groups preclude conclusions about safety or effectiveness. Further prospective data will inform care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".