MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Low-Intensity Warfarin Is Ineffective for the Prevention of PTFE Graft Failure in Patients on Hemodialysis

2002· article· en· W2140667227 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mark Crowther, Catherine M. Clase, Peter J. Margetts, Jim A. Julian, Kim Lambert, Denise Sneath, Ryuta Nagai, Sarah Wilson, Alistair J. Ingram

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsHotel Dieu Shaver Health and Rehabilitation CentreHotel Dieu HospitalMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWarfarinDialysisPlaceboHemodialysisOdds ratioSurgeryConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) dialysis grafts in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are prone to thrombotic failure. The objective of this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was to determine if warfarin reduces the risk of failure of PTFE dialysis grafts. Patients with ESRD and newly placed PTFE grafts were studied at community and academic dialysis centers in Southwestern Ontario. Patients were allocated to receive warfarin or matching placebo, with the warfarin administered to achieve a target INR of 1.4 to 1.9. Time to graft failure was the main outcome measure. A total of 107 patients (56 allocated to warfarin) were randomized. The time-to-event analysis revealed no significant difference in the likelihood of graft survival between the two groups (odds ratio, 1.76 in favor of placebo; 95% confidence interval, 0.72 to 4.34). Six major bleeds occurred in five patients allocated to warfarin compared with none in the patients who received placebo (P = 0.03). In conclusion, low-dose warfarin was associated with an excess of clinically important major bleeding in patients with ESRD enrolled in this study. Furthermore, low-intensity, monitored-dose warfarin does not appear to prolong PTFE graft survival.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations190
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicCentral Venous Catheters and HemodialysisFrench-language works237,207