MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2787915045 · doi:10.1161/jaha.117.007603

Use of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Canadian Primary Care Practice 2010–2015: A Cohort Study From the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network

2018· article· en· W2787915045 on OpenAlexaffabout
Finlay A. McAlister, Scott Garrison, Leanne Kosowan, Justin A. Ezekowitz, Alexander Singer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationOdds ratioDosingConfidence intervalRetrospective cohort studyMedical prescriptionClopidogrelInternal medicineWarfarinCohortEmergency medicineCohort studyAspirinPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background As questions have been raised about the appropriateness of direct oral anticoagulant ( DOAC ) dosing among outpatients with atrial fibrillation, we examined this issue in patients being managed by primary care providers. Methods and Results This was a retrospective cohort new‐user study using electronic medical records from 744 Canadian primary care clinicians. Potentially inappropriate DOAC prescribing was defined as prescribing lower or higher doses than those recommended by guidelines for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Of the 6658 patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who were prescribed a DOAC (mean age: 74.8; 55% male), 626 (9.4%) had a CHADS 2 score of 0, and 168 (2.5%) had a CHADS ‐ VAS c score of 0. Of the DOAC prescriptions, 527 (7.7%) were deemed potentially inappropriate: 496 (7.2%) were potentially underdosed, and 31 (0.5%) were prescribed a dose that was higher than recommended. Patients were more likely to be prescribed lower‐than‐recommended doses if they were female (adjusted odds ratio [ aOR ]: 1.3 [95% confidence interval ( CI ), 1.0–1.5]), had multiple comorbidities ( aOR: 1.4 [95% CI, 1.1–1.8])—particularly heart failure ( aOR : 1.6 [95% CI, 1.2–2.0]) or dementia ( aOR : 1.4 [95% CI, 1.1–1.8])—or if they were also taking aspirin ( aOR : 1.7 [95% CI, 1.3–2.1]) or nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs ( aOR : 1.2 [95% CI, 1.02–1.5]). Potentially inappropriate DOAC dosing was more common in rural practices ( aOR : 2.1 [95% CI, 1.7–2.6]) or smaller practices ( aOR : 1.9 [95% CI, 1.6–2.4] for practices smaller than median). Conclusions The vast majority of DOAC prescriptions in our cohort of primary care–managed patients appeared to be for appropriate doses, particularly since prescribing a reduced dose of DOAC may be appropriate in frail patients or those taking other medications that predispose to bleeding.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207