PP44 Optimal Use Of Warfarin: Self-Monitoring From A Quebec Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Frequent standard International Normalized Ratio (INR) monitoring by health professionals is one of the major inconveniences reported by warfarin users. However, portable coagulometers are now available to reduce this burden by allowing patients to self-monitor their INR in the comfort of their home, thereby reducing their visiting frequency to a medical clinic. The aim of this work was thus to elaborate recommendations on the use of self-monitoring in the management of warfarin-treated patients in the province of Quebec. Methods Systematic literature reviews were conducted to retrieve the most up-to-date scientific data from primary studies and pharmacoeconomic evaluations as well as recommendations from published clinical practice guidelines. This information was then triangulated with the experiential knowledge of Quebec experts and clinicians collaborating on the project. Results The scientific, contextual and experiential evidence gathered during this work provided convincing support for the use of self-monitoring for long-term warfarin-treated patients, leading to a more effective treatment than standard monitoring while being safe, cost-effective and potentially improving patients’ quality of life. However, physical and mental limitations can hinder the use of portable coagulometers, outlining the need for caution in the selection and support of self-monitoring patients. Conclusions This work led to the development of specific recommendations on the use of self-monitoring along with a clinical tool to help discussion between patients and health professionals leading to a shared decision-making. This work will be part of two optimal usage guides on oral anticoagulant therapy to be published by the Institut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".