Computerized management of oral anticoagulant therapy: experience in major joint arthroplasty.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of the safety and potential cost savings of a computerized, laboratory-based program to manage inpatient warfarin thromboprophylaxis after major joint arthroplasty. DESIGN: A consecutive-case study of adults. SETTING: A tertiary care orthopedic institution. PATIENTS: Patients requiring joint arthroplasty who had no recent episodes of thromboembolic disease, no mechanical heart valve, atrial fibrillation, severe liver disease or baseline international normalized ratio [INR] greater than 1.3 admitted over a 54-month period (July 1994-December 1998). All patients received a standard regimen of warfarin beginning on the evening after the operation. Four hundred and thirty randomly selected patients managed by the program were followed up by telephone survey 3 months after discharge. Patients exhibiting erratic responses to warfarin were withdrawn from the program and managed individually thereafter. INTERVENTION: Major joint arthroplasty with warfarin therapy administered through the computerized program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Test results maintained within the desired therapeutic range (INR 2.0-3.0), clinically severe bleeding episodes, readmission rates, clinically symptomatic and venographically proven episodes of venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. RESULTS: Over the study period 5629 patients underwent joint arthroplasty; 5,372 patients were considered for the program; 332 patients were ineligible and were managed individually; 311 entered patients did not complete the program. This left 4,729 patients who completed the program. In 2932 (62%) patients test results were maintained in the desired therapeutic range. The major bleeding rate was less than 0.5%, the readmission rate was 3.8%, the deep venous thrombosis rate was 3.7% and the pulmonary embolism rate was 0.2% with no thromboembolic related deaths in the small sample cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients requiring warfarin thromboprophylaxis can be safely and effectively managed by this laboratory-based computerized program while in hospital. Significant potential cost savings in nursing time could be achieved.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".