Clinical Impact of Point-of-Care vs Laboratory Measurement of Anticoagulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients using anticoagulation point-of-care (POC) monitors are advised to periodically test these systems against laboratory methods to monitor performance. The international normalized ratio (INR), however, can vary between test systems owing to different instrument-reagent combinations. In a randomized study evaluating warfarin self-management, we compared INR measured by patients on a POC monitor (ProTime, International Technidyne Corporation, Edison, NJ) with those obtained at a hospital laboratory within 1 hour. Ninety-one paired INR determinations from 55 patients met inclusion criteria. Clinical agreement in which POC and laboratory INR were within or outside the target INR range occurred in 56 (62%) of 91 cases (κ = 0.35). The mean (SD) difference between POC and laboratory INR was 0.44 (0.61). Six pairs differed by 1 or more INR units, 3 at study initiation resulting in POC monitor replacement. The accuracy of INR self-testing with ProTime was acceptable. The small failure rate of INR agreement might be clinically important, suggesting the need for external quality control systems.
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 | 0.066 | 0.219 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".