Inappropriate dosing of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cardiovascular disease for which newer oral anticoagulants are available. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the appropriateness in prescriptions of direct oral anticoagulant (DOACs), more specifically apixaban, dabigatran and rivaroxaban. This was a singlecentre, retrospective study conducted in the province of Quebec, Canada. Adult subjects hospitalized between October 2011 and October 2014, with a diagnosis of AF, and a DOAC prescription were included. Data were retrieved from the electronic medical records and prescriptions were evaluated according to appropriateness criteria. A total of 500 subjects were included (235 subjects on dabigatran,222 on rivaroxaban and 43 on apixaban). Overall, 70.4% (95% confidence interval [Cl] 66.4-74.1) of DOAC prescriptions were considered appropriate. About 24% of subjects received an inappropriate dose of apixaban, dabigatran or rivaroxaban. A reduced dose was prescribed in 56.8% of subjects with no clearindication, and 43.2% received a dose that was not reduced while indicated. DOACs were frequentlyprescribed at a dose that was considered inappropriate. There is a need to strengthen dosing recommendations of DOACs in clinical 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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".