MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307504129 · doi:10.1093/ehjqcco/qcac069

Kidney function and the comparative effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants vs. warfarin in adults with atrial fibrillation: a multicenter observational study

2022· article· en· W4307504129 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaOttawa HospitalLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of AlbertaSeven Oaks General HospitalSt. Michael's HospitalWestern UniversityVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsWarfarinAtrial fibrillationMedicineObservational studyRenal functionInternal medicineCardiologyMulticenter studyMajor bleedingRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and warfarin in adults with atrial fibrillation (AF) by level of kidney function. METHODS AND RESULTS: We pooled findings from five retrospective cohorts (2011-18) across Australia and Canada of adults with; a new dispensation for a DOAC or warfarin, an AF diagnosis, and a measure of baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). The outcomes of interest, within 1 year from the cohort entry date, were: (1) the composite of all-cause death, first hospitalization for ischaemic stroke, or transient ischaemic attack (effectiveness), and (2) first hospitalization for major bleeding defined as an intracranial, upper or lower gastrointestinal, or other bleeding (safety). Cox models were used to examine the association of a DOAC vs. warfarin with outcomes, after 1:1 matching via a propensity score. Kidney function was categorized as eGFR ≥60, 45-59, 30-44, and <30 mL/min/1.73 m2. A total of 74 542 patients were included in the matched analysis. DOAC initiation was associated with greater or similar effectiveness compared with warfarin initiation across all eGFR categories [pooled HRs (95% CIs) for eGFR categories: 0.74(0.69-0.79), 0.76(0.54-1.07), 0.68(0.61-0.75) and 0.86(0.76-0.98)], respectively. DOAC initiation was associated with lower or similar risk of major bleeding than warfarin initiation [pooled HRs (95% CIs): 0.75(0.65-0.86), 0.81(0.65-1.01), 0.82(0.66-1.02), and 0.71(0.52-0.99), respectively). Associations between DOAC initiation, compared with warfarin initiation, and study outcomes were not modified by eGFR category. CONCLUSION: DOAC use, compared with warfarin use, was associated with a lower or similar risk of all-cause death, ischaemic stroke, and transient ischaemic attack and also a lower or similar risk of major bleeding across all levels of kidney function.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.241
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it