Evaluation of an initiation protocol of 4 mg of warfarin for atrial fibrillation in the outpatient setting.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the efficacy and safety of an initiation algorithm for 4 mg of warfarin in ambulatory patients with atrial fibrillation. DESIGN: Prospectively planned retrospective chart review. SETTING: Centre for Family Medicine Family Health Team in Kitchener, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Ambulatory patients requiring anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were prescribed 4 mg of warfarin to be taken once daily for 3 days. An international normalized ratio (INR) measured on the morning of the fourth day was used to predict the maintenance dose of warfarin. Subsequent INR measurements were obtained biweekly until patients reached their actual maintenance dose. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of INR values greater than or equal to 4.0 before the warfarin maintenance dose was achieved. Secondary outcome measures included thromboembolic and bleeding events, number of days required to reach therapeutic INR, and correlation between predicted and actual warfarin maintenance dose. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were included in the study. The average age was 76.0 years (range 56.0 to 89.0), and 17 patients were women. The average CHADS2 (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥ 75 years,diabetes mellitus, and stroke or transient ischemic attack) score was 2.0.Only 1 patient had an INR greater than 4.0 during the study period. The mean time to achieve a therapeutic INR was 11.0 days. The day 4 INR was moderately predictive of the maintenance dose (r2 = 0.47). There were no adverse events that required medical attention during the study period. CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, an initiation algorithm for 4 mg of warfarin was safe and achieved a therapeutic INR within a reasonable time frame in outpatients with atrial fibrillation.
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 | 0.031 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".