Oral anticoagulant therapy for heart disease: results in actual cardiology practice.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the success and complication rates of oral anticoagulation obtained in large, well controlled trials, upon which recommendations are based, are comparable with routine cardiology practice. DESIGN: An observational, prospective cohort study collected data on all patients followed at an anticoagulant clinic over one calendar year. PATIENTS: One thousand and seventy-eight patients anticoagulated for cardiovascular indications, mainly atrial fibrillation, prosthetic valves and ventricular dysfunction, were followed for 804 patient-years of treatment. No patient was lost to follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Telephone conversations and regular verification of medical files were used to record and classify all bleeding and thromboembolic events according to severity. International normalized ratios (INR) were compared with target ranges. RESULTS: One hundred and twelve bleeding events, ie, 13.9/100 patient-years (% p-y), were recorded, of which 61 required medical attention. Major hemorrhages, defined as those requiring treatment or hospital observation for more than 24 h, occurred in 15 instances (1.9% p-y). Among these, 9 (1.1% p-y) were classified as life threatening, with four being fatal (0,5% p-y). Twenty-two thromboembolic events (2.7% p-y) occurred, of which 10 were major (1.2% p-y), leaving three patients (0.4% p-y) with long term sequelae and causing two deaths (0.25% p-y). INRs were within target range 62.3% of the time, with 2.2% of values recorded above 5 and 0.3% above 10. CONCLUSION: The low failure and complication rates obtained in large, controlled trials are similar to those observed in actual cardiology practice.
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 | 0.016 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".