Retrospective Cross-sectional Analysis of Older Adults Living with Frailty and Anticoagulant Use for Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Oral anticoagulation (OAC) is recommended for most individuals with atrial fibrillation (AF), including those who are frail. Based on previous literature, those who are frail may be less likely to be prescribed OAC, and up to one-third may receive an inappropriate dose if prescribed a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC). The objectives of this study were to determine the proportion of frail ambulatory older adults with AF who are prescribed OAC, compare the rates of OAC use across the frailty spectrum, assess the appropriateness of DOAC dosing, and identify if frailty and geriatric syndromes impact OAC prescribing patterns. Methods: Retrospective cross-sectional review of individuals with AF referred to an ambulatory clinic for older adults living with frailty and/or geriatric syndromes. Rockwood clinical frailty score of ≥4 was used to define frailty and DOAC appropriateness was assessed based on the Canadian Cardiovascular Society AF guidelines. Results: Two hundred and ten participants were included. The mean age was 84 years, 49% were female and the median frailty score was 5. Of the 185 participants who were frail, 82% were prescribed an OAC (83% with frailty score of 4, 85% with a frailty score of 5, and 78% with a frailty score of 6). Of those prescribed a DOAC, 70% received a guideline-approved dose. Conclusions: Over 80% of ambulatory older adults with frailty and AF were prescribed an OAC. However, of those prescribed a DOAC, 30% received an unapproved dose, suggesting more emphasis should be placed on initial and ongoing dosage selection.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".