Effect of Vitamin K Intake on the Stability of Treatment with Vitamin K Antagonists: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vitamin K antagonists (VKA) are highly effective for the primary and secondary prevention of arterial and venous thromboembolic events. However, patients treated with VKA have on average only 60% of their international normalized ratio (INR) values within the therapeutic range and INR instability is associated with an increased risk of thrombosis and bleeding events. Recent evidence suggests that poor dietary vitamin K intake may affect anticoagulation control, but the role of vitamin K in INR stability remains to be established. We performed a systematic review of the literature to assess the role of vitamin K dietary intake on the stability of VKA and the potential effect of daily vitamin K supplementation on VKA therapy. After a search in Medline and EMBASE databases, 15 studies for a total of 1,838 patients were included in our systematic review. Observational studies suggest an increased risk of unstable anticoagulation control in patients with lower daily vitamin K intake. On the other hand, the role of daily vitamin K supplementation or a diet with controlled vitamin K content in patients on VKA treatment remains to be established. Use of daily vitamin K supplementation may be associated with a clinically relevant increase in the time in therapeutic range in patients with unstable anticoagulation control. Conversely, this effect appears small and not clinically relevant when vitamin K was administered to an unselected population receiving VKA. Other large prospective studies are necessary to confirm our preliminary findings.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".