Multicomponent comprehensive care was as effective as usual care for decreasing major bleeding in older patients on warfarin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(2000) Ann Intern Med 133, 687. Beyth RJ, Quinn L, Landefeld CS. . A multicomponent intervention to prevent major bleeding complications in older patients receiving warfarin. A randomized, controlled trial. . Nov 7; . : . –95. . [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: In older patients requiring warfarin, is multicomponent comprehensive care (MCC) more effective than usual care for reducing major bleeding events? Randomised {allocation concealed*}†, blinded (data collectors and outcome assessors),* controlled trial with 6 months follow up. Cuyahoga County, Ohio, USA. 325 patients (mean age 75 y, 57% women) who were ≥ 65 years of age, received ≥10 000 units of intravenous unfractionated heparin, resided in the area, and had planned warfarin treatment for ≥10 days. Exclusion criteria included treatment with warfarin in the previous 6 months, admission from a nursing home, or enrolment in another clinical trial. Follow up was complete. 163 patients were allocated to MCC, which consisted of a guideline based consultation and patient education, coaching, and self monitoring of prothrombin time with a portable monitor. Home visits were made 3 days after discharge to assess the patients' ability … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAnnals%2Bof%2BInternal%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DANN%2BINTERN%2BMED%26rft.issn%253D0003-4819%26rft.aulast%253DBeyth%26rft.auinit1%253DR.%2BJ.%26rft.volume%253D133%26rft.issue%253D9%26rft.spage%253D687%26rft.epage%253D695%26rft.atitle%253DA%2BMulticomponent%2BIntervention%2BTo%2BPrevent%2BMajor%2BBleeding%2BComplications%2Bin%2BOlder%2BPatients%2BReceiving%2BWarfarin%253A%2BA%2BRandomized%252C%2BControlled%2BTrial%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.7326%252F0003-4819-133-9-200011070-00010%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11074901%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/0003-4819-133-9-200011070-00010&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=11074901&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F6%2F4%2F116.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000165075300003&link_type=ISI
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".