MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037407678 · doi:10.1097/mbc.0b013e32832b184d

Practical application of the 10-mg warfarin initiation nomogram

2009· article· en· W2037407678 on OpenAlexaff
Philip S. Wells, Grégoire Le Gal, Sarah Tierney, Marc Carrier

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood Coagulation & Fibrinolysis · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNomogramWarfarinMedicineRetrospective cohort studyHeparinClinical trialSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Initiation of warfarin therapy is a clinical challenge. A 10-mg warfarin initiation nomogram was recently validated in a randomized controlled trial. We sought to determine the efficacy and safety of this 10-mg warfarin initiation nomogram in 'real-life' daily practice. A retrospective cohort including all outpatients beginning concurrent treatment with warfarin and low-molecular-weight heparin over a 24-month period in our Thrombosis Unit was reviewed. Eight hundred and forty-one patients were included; of them, 640 (76.1%) were started on the nomogram. The nomogram was entirely followed in 324 patients (38.5%). The efficacy and safety profile was similar to that observed in the original clinical trial; 86% of patients managed according to the nomogram reached the international normalized ratio target of 2.0-3.0 within 5 days. Mean duration of low-molecular-weight heparin treatment was 6.0 +/- 1.9 days, and 3.7% of patients had an international normalized ratio of at least 5.0 in the first 4 weeks of treatment. The 10-mg nomogram effectively results in an early therapeutic international normalized ratio with a good safety profile in 'real-life' daily practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood Coagulation & FibrinolysisSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207