Bleeding Complications in Warfarin-Treated Patients Admitted to the Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increased use of warfarin for the treatment and prophylaxis of many diseases has increased the frequency of adverse events. Emergency departments (EDs) are the first places where early interventions for bleeding and other complaints related to warfarin use are performed. This study assessed the characteristics of patients receiving warfarin and the risk factors for bleeding complication among those admitted to the ED. METHODS: Patients admitted to the ED for any reason other than trauma during a 1-year period were retrospectively reviewed. The study population consisted of 96 patients who had received warfarin and had an international normalized ratio (INR) ≥ 3. Patient demographics and medical history were recorded. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients (female, 52.1%) was 64.9 ± 14.5 years. Fatigue was the most common presenting complaint (61%). At least one major and/or minor bleeding event had occurred in 32 (33.3%) of the patients. Patients with (n = 32) and without (n = 64) bleeding complications did not significantly differ with respect to age, sex, reason for warfarin initiation, duration of warfarin use, concomitant diseases, and concurrent medications. There were also no significant differences in the distribution of patient admissions in terms of season at presentation, INR level, and weekly warfarin dose. CONCLUSIONS: While the parameters evaluated in this study did not significantly differ among warfarin-treated patients, they may nonetheless pose a risk of bleeding. Further large-scale and long-term studies that take into account biological variation are required to precisely identify the risk factors for 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 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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".