MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2343284837 · doi:10.1160/th15-12-0955

An expanded pharmacogenomics warfarin dosing table with utility in generalised dosing guidance

2016· article· en· W2343284837 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Payman Shahabi, Laura Scheinfeldt, D.E. Lynch, Tara Schmidlen, Sylvie Perreault, Margaret Keller, Rachel Kasper, Lisa Wawak, Joseph P. Jarvis, Norman P. Gerry, Erynn S. Gordon, Michael F. Christman, Marie‐Pierre Dubé, Neda Gharani

Bibliographic record

VenueThrombosis and Haemostasis · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchU.S. Air Force
KeywordsDosingWarfarinVKORC1PharmacogenomicsMedicineCYP2C9PharmacogeneticsCohortInternal medicinePharmacologyGenotypeBiologyAtrial fibrillationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pharmacogenomics (PGx) guided warfarin dosing, using a comprehensive dosing algorithm, is expected to improve dose optimisation and lower the risk of adverse drug reactions. As a complementary tool, a simple genotype-dosing table, such as in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Coumadin drug label, may be utilised for general risk assessment of likely over- or under-anticoagulation on a standard dose of warfarin. This tool may be used as part of the clinical decision support for the interpretation of genetic data, serving as a first step in the anticoagulation therapy decision making process. Here we used a publicly available warfarin dosing calculator (www.warfarindosing.org) to create an expanded gene-based warfarin dosing table, the CPMC-WD table that includes nine genetic variants in CYP2C9, VKORC1, and CYP4F2. Using two datasets, a European American cohort (EUA, n=73) and the Quebec Warfarin Cohort (QWC, n=769), we show that the CPMC-WD table more accurately predicts therapeutic dose than the FDA table (51 % vs 33 %, respectively, in the EUA, McNemar's two-sided p=0.02; 52 % vs 37 % in the QWC, p<1×10(-6)). It also outperforms both the standard of care 5 mg/day dosing (51 % vs 34 % in the EUA, p=0.04; 52 % vs 31 % in the QWC, p<1×10(-6)) as well as a clinical-only algorithm (51 % vs 38 % in the EUA, trend p=0.11; 52 % vs 45 % in the QWC, p=0.003). This table offers a valuable update to the PGx dosing guideline in the drug label.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.195
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations17
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThrombosis and HaemostasisSame topicPharmacogenetics and Drug MetabolismFrench-language works237,207