Prevalence of Use and the Risk of Adverse Effects Associated with Complementary and Alternative Medicine in a Cohort of Patients Receiving Warfarin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), including orally administered herbals, botanicals, vitamins, and supplements, may pose a risk to patients on warfarin therapy. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of CAM use among patients taking warfarin and evaluate the impact of CAM exposure on the risk of warfarin-related adverse effects. METHODS: A survey was administered to hospital inpatients and clinic outpatients on drug exposure (including CAM) over the previous month, self-reported bleeding events, use of alcohol and vitamin K-rich foods, and medical conditions. Prescription medication use was verified, and laboratory records were checked for out-of-range international normalized ratios (INRs) (defined as INR >4 or <2). The use of CAM, including products with reported or theoretical interactions with warfarin, was compared between patients with and without self-reported bleeding or out-of-range INR. RESULTS: Among the 314 patients who completed the survey, 44.3% reported using CAM at least weekly. Potentially interacting CAM was used by 34.1% of all patients, or 18.2% if vitamin E was excluded as an interacting CAM. Vitamin E was used by 24.2% of all patients and 71.0% of those who used potentially interacting CAM. There was no significant difference in CAM use or consumption of vitamin K-rich foods between patients with and without INRs greater than 4 or for patients with and without INRs less than 2. CONCLUSIONS: The use of potentially interacting CAM in this cohort was higher than the use previously reported among patients on warfarin therapy. However, exposure to CAM was not associated with an increase in the risk of self-reported bleeding or out-of-range INR.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".