Adequacy of Anticoagulation in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Coming to a Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the adequacy of anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) coming to a hospital. DESIGN: Retrospective medical record review. SETTING: Tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients with a history of AF who had been prescribed warfarin and who had the international normalized ratio (INR) measured when they arrived at the hospital. Those who developed AF as a complication during hospitalization were excluded. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 1085 patients, 375 (mean age 73 yrs, 56.3% men) were eligible for further evaluation. Most had nonvalvular AF; in 44.5% the INR was subtherapeutic, in 36.5% it was therapeutic, and in 18.9% it was supratherapeutic. Patients admitted for any thromboembolic event and for ischemic stroke were significantly more likely to have subtherapeutic INRs. CONCLUSION: It is well documented in the literature that warfarin is underprescribed, but our results suggest that even in treated patients, about half are inadequately protected from thromboembolism.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".