Effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban vs warfarin in patients with pulmonary embolism and right ventricular dysfunction: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Limited data exist comparing the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban and warfarin in patients with right ventricular dysfunction (RVD), a common acute pulmonary embolism (PE) complication. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin among patients with PE and RVD. Methods: values from Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Overall, 246 rivaroxaban and 315 warfarin users were included (mean age, 63 years; female: 53%). Median time of treatment was 270 and 235 days for rivaroxaban and warfarin users, respectively; 50.9% of INR measurements among warfarin users were within therapeutic range. Rivaroxaban was associated with significantly lower risk of VTE recurrence than warfarin at all-time points, including 41% lower risk at 36 months (20.4% vs 30.3%; hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.59 [0.38, 0.92]). There was no significant difference in risk of major bleeding between cohorts up to 36 months of treatment (8.2% vs 13.6%). Conclusion: Rivaroxaban was associated with lower risk of recurrent VTE compared with warfarin, without a significant difference in risk of major bleeding.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".