The anticoagulation choices of internal medicine residents for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To explore the oral anticoagulation (OAC) prescribing choices of Canadian internal medicine residents, at different training levels, in comparison with the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) guidelines for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional, web-based survey, involving clinical scenarios designed to favour the use of non-vitamin K antagonists (NOACs) as per the 2014 CCS NVAF guidelines. Additional questions were also designed to determine resident attitudes towards OAC prescribing. RESULTS: A total of 518 internal medicine responses were analysed, with 196 postgraduate year (PGY)-1s, 169 PGY-2s and 153 PGY-3s. The majority of residents (81%) reported feeling comfortable choosing OAC, with 95% having started OAC in the past 3 months. In the initial clinical scenario involving an uncomplicated patient with a CHADS2 score of 3, warfarin was favoured over any of the NOACs by PGY-1s (81.6% vs 73.9%), but NOACs were favoured by PGY-3s (88.3% vs 83.7%). This was the only scenario where OAC choices varied by PGY year, as each of the subsequent clinical scenarios residents generally favoured warfarin over NOACs irrespective of level of training. The majority of residents stated that they would no longer prescribe warfarin once NOAC reversal agents are available, and residents felt risk of adverse events was the most important factor when choosing OAC. CONCLUSIONS: Canadian internal medicine residents favoured warfarin over NOACs for patients with NVAF, which is in discordance with the evidence-based CCS guidelines. This finding persisted throughout the 3 years of core internal medicine training.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".