MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416141550 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noaf201.0145

BIOM-57. ANTITHROMBOTIC THERAPY IN PATIENTS WITH BRAIN TUMORS

2025· article· en· W4416141550 on OpenAlexaff
Edwin Nieblas Bedolla, Arushi Tripathy, Marc Carrier, Jordan K. Schaefer

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntithromboticCancerThrombosisGuidelineIncidence (geometry)Renal cell carcinomaRetrospective cohort studyMelanomaSystemic therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract IMPORTANCE Managing antithrombotic therapy (ATT) in patients with brain tumors (BTs) presents a critical clinical challenge due to the dual risks of thrombosis and hemorrhage. Up to 24% of patients with glioblastoma and 20% with brain metastases develop venous thromboembolism (VTE), while up to 13% experience spontaneous intratumoral hemorrhage (ITH) — a potentially fatal complication, especially in anticoagulated patients. Despite improved cancer survival and thereby increasing incidence of BTs, guidelines for ATT in patients with BTs remain limited and vague. OBSERVATIONS A comprehensive literature review demonstrated that hemorrhagic risk varies widely by tumor type; melanoma and renal cell carcinoma metastases are highest with ITH rates up to 40–46%, but ATT does not increase risk. Risk is further elevated by anti-VEGF therapy, surgery, and some systemic treatments. Recent data suggest direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) may be safer than low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with glioma, but standard hemorrhage risk tools (e.g., PANWARDS, Khorana score) lack relevance for this population. National guidelines are inconsistent, especially in patients with brain tumors or prior ITH. Preliminary studies indicate that ATT resumption 4–8 weeks after ITH may be safe, but data are retrospective and observational. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE There is a pressing need for precision-based ATT strategies in patients with BT, particularly those recovering from ITH. Multidisciplinary collaboration and validation of BT-specific predictors of ITH are essential to guide evidence-based care and inform future guideline development. Our ongoing investigation combines institutional tertiary care center retrospective review to 1) identify predictors of ITH in patients with BT, with an international multidisciplinary survey to 2) assess variation in ATT practices following ITH in order to 3) develop risk stratification tools incorporating tumor biology, location, treatment history, and molecular markers to aid ATT decision-making in patients with brain tumors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207