Personalized Anticoagulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical trials testing pharmacogenomic-guided warfarin dosing for patients with atrial fibrillation have demonstrated conflicting results. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants are expensive and contraindicated for several conditions. A strategy optimizing anticoagulant selection remains an unmet clinical need. METHODS AND RESULTS: Characteristics from 14 206 patients with atrial fibrillation were integrated into a validated warfarin clinical trial simulation framework using iterative Bayesian network modeling and a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model. Individual dose-response for patients was simulated for 5 warfarin protocols-a fixed-dose protocol, a clinically guided protocol, and 3 increasingly complex pharmacogenomic-guided protocols. For each protocol, a complexity score was calculated using the variables predicting warfarin dose and the number of predefined international normalized ratio (INR) thresholds for each adjusted dose. Study outcomes included optimal time in therapeutic range ≥65% and clinical events. A combination of age and genotype identified different optimal protocols for various subpopulations. A fixed-dose protocol provided well-controlled INR only in normal responders ≥65, whereas for normal responders <65 years old, a clinically guided protocol was necessary to achieve well-controlled INR. Sensitive responders ≥65 and <65 and highly sensitive responders ≥65 years old required pharmacogenomic-guided protocols to achieve well-controlled INR. However, highly sensitive responders <65 years old did not achieve well-controlled INR and had higher associated clinical events rates than other subpopulations. CONCLUSIONS: Under the assumptions of this simulation, patients with atrial fibrillation can be triaged to an optimal warfarin therapy protocol by age and genotype. Clinicians should consider alternative anticoagulation therapy for patients with suboptimal outcomes under any warfarin protocol.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.085 | 0.033 |
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".