Warfarin Treatment and Outcomes of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation in Rural and Urban Settings
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Warfarin is an effective agent in the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, it requires close monitoring with regular visits to health care facilities. To date, it is unknown whether there is a difference in warfarin utilization and outcomes between urban and rural settings. METHODS: We used administrative databases to compare warfarin utilization patterns and stroke and major bleeding outcomes in rural and urban settings in a population-based cohort study of patients ≥ 65 years admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of AF in the province of Quebec, Canada, from 1999 to 2007. Patients' postal codes were used to differentiate between rural and urban settings. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 18,198 rural (21.8%) and 65,315 urban (78.2%) patients, with similar mean age of 79 years and a similar burden of comorbidities. Overall, there was marked underutilization of warfarin in both rural and urban settings. Warfarin-filled prescription rates were slightly higher in the rural setting (adjusted OR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.12-1.20). In multivariable Cox regression analyses, the risk for stroke and major bleeding in rural settings was similar to that in urban settings (stroke: adjusted HR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.95-1.09; major bleeding: adjusted HR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.95-1.12). CONCLUSIONS: Patients in rural settings were slightly more likely to fill a prescription for warfarin, but they experienced similar stroke and major bleeding rates to their urban counterparts.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it