Direct Oral Anticoagulants in the Real World: Insights into Canadian Health Care Providers’ Understanding of Medication Dosing and Use
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use is increasing in Canada. This study evaluated nurse, staff physician, and resident physician understanding of DOAC dosing and administration. Methods: An electronic survey was distributed to health care providers (HCPs) at a hospital in Ontario, Canada. The questions discussed oral anticoagulant indications, dose adjustments, storage and administration, and counselling. Results: A total of 52 responses were received: 3 from nurses, 1 from a nurse practitioner, 21 from staff physicians (Hematology, Thrombosis Medicine, General Internal Medicine, Neurology), 25 from resident physicians, and 2 unspecified respondents. Twenty-four respondents (46%) felt comfortable or very comfortable prescribing DOACs. Only 15 (29%) knew that dabigatran should not be exposed to moisture and 13 (25%) knew that higher doses of rivaroxaban should be taken with food. Conclusion: HCP understanding of DOACs is variable. Though they express comfort with DOACs, their self-reported knowledge of dosing, administration, and patient counselling is incomplete.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 it