Antidepressants, Warfarin, and the Risk of Hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Case reports suggest that some selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors can interact with warfarin to increase the likelihood of bleeding. We speculated that, among patients receiving warfarin, initiation of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment would be associated with an increased risk of hospitalization for upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding (UGIB). METHODS: We conducted a population-based, nested, case-control study involving Ontario residents 66 years or older continuously treated with warfarin for at least 1 year. Cases admitted with UGIB were compared with matched controls (1:10) to explore the odds ratio for initiation of various antidepressants within 42, 90, and 180 days before the index admission. RESULTS: From January 1994 to December 2002, we identified 98,784 elderly patients continuously receiving warfarin for at least 1 year; of whom 1538 (0.6%) were admitted to hospital for UGIB. The adjusted odds ratio for fluoxetine/fluvoxamine exposure in 90 days before UGIB hospitalization is 1.2 (95% confidence interval, 0.8-1.7), and the adjusted odds ratio for other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in the same period was 1.1 (95% confidence interval, 0.9-1.4). The odds ratios for exposure to antidepressants in 180 days before UGIB hospitalization were similar. CONCLUSION: The initiation of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment in patients receiving warfarin was not associated with a significant increase in the risk of hospitalization for UGIB.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".