MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 13225: Which Oral Anti-Coagulant Do Patients Prefer for Stroke Prevention in Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation?

2016· article· en· W2887890429 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory Y.H. Lip, Paolo Verdecchia, Tommi Tervonen, Anastasia Ustyugova, Jutta Heinrich-Nols, Savion Gropper, Ryan Kwan, Sumitra Sri Bhashyam, Kevin Marsh

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsBoehringer Ingelheim (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationStroke (engine)Cardiologyvalvular heart diseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: There are various oral anticoagulants available for stroke prevention in patients suffering from non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) with some drug-related variations in clinical profile and non-clinical attributes. Patient preferences should be taken into account in anticoagulant prescription decisions. Hypothesis: Patient valuation of different anticoagulant characteristics in stroke prevention allows for meaningful comparison of the non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs; apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban) and Vitamin K Antagonist (VKA, ie. warfarin). Methods: Multi-criteria decision analysis was developed with 5 clinical and 3 non-clinical criteria. Criteria weights were defined using results from two discrete choice experiments (DCEs). The evaluation model contained more fine-grained events than the DCEs, and therefore preference weights from DCEs needed to be distributed to the evaluation criteria. The weights were distributed according to event fatality rates, which were obtained from the RE-LY trial that compared dabigatran to warfarin. An additive model was used to combine treatment performance with the weights to estimate the overall value of each oral anticoagulant. Probabilistic and structural sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Dabigatran obtained the highest overall value (see Figure: weighted contribution of different evaluation criteria to the overall value of five oral anticoagulants) and the highest first rank probability (88%) in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Rivaroxaban performed worse than the other NOACs, but better than VKA (both with 0% first rank probability). The results were insensitive to removing availability of reversal agent from the model. Conclusions: Patient preferences on treatment characteristics allows to discriminate oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in NVAF, with dabigatran ranking highest and warfarin lowest.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→