Knowledge, attitudes and current practices of Palestinian internists toward aspirin prescription
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aim: Long-term aspirin therapy is crucial for patients at increased risk for cardiovascular diseases. However, differing perceptions among healthcare providers profoundly shape the challenges observed in risk assessment. This study assessed the knowledge, attitudes and current practices of internists who prescribe aspirin as a preventive measure for cardiovascular diseases. Methods: A questionnaire was distributed to a total of 38 internists working at healthcare centres in Nablus, Palestine. Results: The majority of physicians (95%) reported that they prescribe aspirin for patients following a coronary artery bypass graft. About 92% of physicians prescribe aspirin for patients with a peripheral vascular disease or acute myocardial infarction, and 85% of physicians prescribe aspirin if patients have a history of stroke and congestive heart failure, or stable angina. The prescribing of aspirin as prophylaxis for patients without cardiovascular disease, but with one or more risk factors, was reported by 61% to 79% of the physicians depending on the nature and number of risk factors. In some cases, the presence of additional diseases in association with cardiovascular diseases tended to hinder physicians from prescribing aspirin. Conclusions: The majority of Palestinian internal physicians recommend the use of aspirin as a primary prevention tool for cardiovascular disease in spite of its potential negative side effects. Our results revealed that physicians in Palestine tend to prescribe aspirin with varying patterns and therefore a set of evidence-based recommendations should be implemented.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".