A multicentre randomised clinical endpoint study of <scp>parma</scp> 5 computer‐assisted oral anticoagulant dosage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To meet growing demand for oral anticoagulation worldwide there has been increased dependence on computer-assistance in dosage although the safety and effectiveness of any of the individual computer-assisted dosage programs has not previously been established. This randomised multicentre clinical end-point study assessed a new version of the PARMA 5 program. It compared PARMA 5 safety and effectiveness with manual dosage by experienced medical staff at 19 centres with a known interest in oral anticoagulation. Target recruitment was 8000 patient-years, randomised to medical staff or PARMA-5 assisted dosage. Safety and effectiveness of the PARMA 5 program was compared with manual dosage. A total of 10,421 patients were recruited (15,369 patient-years) in the 5-year study. International normalised ratio (INR) tests numbered 167,791 with manual and 160,078 with PARMA 5 dosage. With parma 5 there was overall a non-significant reduction in clinical events but in the 2542 patients with deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism, clinical events were significantly reduced (P = 0.005). Success in achieving 'time in target INR range' was also significantly greater with PARMA 5 compared with the dosage by experienced medical staff. This study demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of PARMA 5-assisted dosage.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".