A comparison of warfarin utilisation in North America and Ireland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The objective of this study was to compare warfarin utilisation trends in Canada, the United States, and Ireland between January 2005 and September 2011. Materials and Methods: We conducted a population-based cross-sectional time series analysis of warfarin utilisation data from January 2005 to September 2011 in the United States, Canada, and Ireland to examine differences in temporal trends in warfarin utilisation. Results: A nearly 50% higher warfarin utilisation rate was observed in Canada and Ireland relative to the United States - the average monthly warfarin utilisation rate was approximately 626 units per 1,000 people in Canada, 423 units per 1,000 people in the United States, and 630 units per 1,000 people in Ireland. However, relative rates of growth in warfarin utilisation were 25.1%, 15.3%, and 38.3% for the United States, Canada, and Ireland, respectively. Interpretation: Rates of warfarin utilisation differ considerably and geographically as evidenced by utilisation rates in the United States, Canada, and Ireland.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".