Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of warfarin in Taiwanese patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The safety and efficacy of warfarin therapeutic range in Asians remain to be ascertained. Physicians in Taiwan consider Asians are more likely to have bleeding complications rather than thromboembolic events from warfarin. The aim of this study was to determine if the proper INR range for patients in Taiwan is different. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted with 161 patients on warfarin therapy for more than 24 consecutive months during March 1, 2006 to Sepember 30, 2008. Total follow-up time was 3,504 patient-months. The incidence rates of thromboembolic and bleeding events for INR categories were calculated. RESULTS: The overall incidence rates of INR ranges of < 1.5, 1.5 - 1.9, 2.0 - 2.4, 2.5 - 2.9, 3.0 - 3.4, and ≥ 3.5 were 8.1, 5.6, 2.0, 7.6, 33.3, and 121.2 per 1,000 patientmonths, respectively. The overall incidence rate at INR of > 3 is higher than that at INR of < 2 or 2 - 3 (p < 0.001), with the lowest incidence rate at INR between 2.0 and 2.4. When INR was maintained at a level < 2, patients taking warfarin for secondary prevention had a significantly higher event rate compared to the primary prevention group (p < 0.05). Age greater than 73 years was a risk factor for thromboembolic events before and after covariate adjustment. CONCLUSION: An INR range of 2 - 2.4 appeared to be associated with lower complications and better clinical outcomes in Taiwanese patients treated with warfarin. Lowering the intensity of anticoagulant therapy further does not decrease the number of events.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".