Designing Personalized Treatment: An Application to Anticoagulation Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we develop an analytical framework for personalizing the anticoagulation therapy of patients who are taking warfarin. Consistent with medical practice, our treatment design consists of two stages: (i) the initiation stage, modeled using a partially‐observable Markov decision process, during which the physician learns through systematic belief updates about the unobservable patient sensitivity to warfarin, and (ii) the maintenance stage, modeled using a Markov decision process, during which the physician relies on his formed belief about patient sensitivity to determine the stable, patient‐specific, warfarin dose to prescribe. We develop an expression for belief updates in the POMDP, establish the optimality of the myopic policy for the MDP, and derive conditions for the existence and uniqueness of a myopically optimal dose. We validate our models using a real‐life patient data set gathered at the Hematology Clinic of the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal. The proposed analytical framework and case study enable us to develop useful clinical insights, for example, concerning the length of the initiation period and the importance of correctly assessing patient sensitivity.
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 | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".