The Random Effects Warfarin Days’ Supply (REWarDS) Model: Development and Validation of a Novel Method for Estimating Exposure to Warfarin Using Administrative Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Warfarin’s complex dosing is a significant barrier to measurement of its exposure in observational studies using population databases. Using population-based administrative data (1996–2019) from British Columbia, Canada, we developed a method based on statistical modeling (Random Effects Warfarin Days’ Supply (REWarDS)) that involves fitting a random-effects linear regression model to patients’ cumulative dosage over time for estimation of warfarin exposure. Model parameters included a minimal universally available set of variables from prescription records for estimation of patients’ individualized average daily doses of warfarin. REWarDS estimates were validated against a reference standard (manual calculation of the daily dose using the free-text administration instructions entered by the dispensing pharmacist) and compared with alternative methods (fixed window, fixed tablet, defined daily dose, and reverse wait time distribution) using Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r), the intraclass correlation coefficient, and the root mean squared error. REWarDS-estimated days’ supply showed strong correlation and agreement with the reference standard (r = 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.90, 0.90); intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.95 (95% CI: 0.94, 0.95); root mean squared error = 8.24 days) and performed better than all of the alternative methods. REWarDS-estimated days’ supply was valid and more accurate than estimates from all other available methods. REWarDS is expected to confer optimal precision in studies measuring warfarin exposure using administrative data.
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 | 0.023 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".