Development and validation of the DOAC Score: a novel bleeding risk prediction tool for patients with atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Clinicians and patients must balance the ischemic benefits and bleeding risks when deciding to anticoagulate patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Current clinical decision tools for assessing bleeding risk have limited performance and were developed for individuals anticoagulated with warfarin. Purpose This study develops and validates a clinical risk score to personalize estimates of bleeding risk for individuals with AF taking direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Methods Among individuals taking dabigatran 150mg twice per day from 44 countries and 951 centers in this secondary analysis of the RE-LY trial, a risk score was developed to determine the probability for bleeding, based on covariates derived in a Cox proportional hazards model. The risk prediction model was internally validated with bootstrapping. We then refined the model in the GARFIELD-AF registry, with individuals taking dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and apixaban. To determine generalizability in external cohorts and among individuals on different DOACS, the risk prediction model was validated in the COMBINE-AF pooled clinical trial cohort and the RAMQ administrative database. The primary outcome was major bleeding. The risk score, termed the DOAC Score, was compared to the HAS-BLED score. Results Of the 5684 patients in RE-LY, 386 experienced a major bleeding event, within a median follow-up of 1.74-years. The prediction model was well-calibrated (goodness-of-fit P = 0.57) and had an optimism-corrected C statistic of 0.73 after internal validation with bootstrapping. The DOAC Score assigned points for age, creatinine clearance/glomerular filtration rate, underweight status, stroke/transient ischemic attack/embolism history, diabetes, hypertension, antiplatelet use, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory use, liver disease, and bleeding history, with each additional point scored associated with a 48.7% (95% CI: 38.9%-59.3%, P<0.001) increase in major bleeding in RE-LY. The score had superior performance to the HAS-BLED score in RE-LY (C Statistic: 0.73 vs 0.60, P for difference <0.001) and among 12,296 individuals in GARFIELD-AF (C statistic: 0.71 vs 0.66, P for Difference = 0.025). The DOAC Score had stronger predictive performance than the HAS-BLED score in both validation cohorts, including 25,586 individuals in COMBINE-AF (C statistic: 0.67 vs 0.63, P for Difference <0.001) and 11,945 individuals in RAMQ (C statistic: 0.65 vs 0.58, P for Difference <0.001). Conclusion In individuals with AF on DOAC therapy, the DOAC Score can help stratify patients based on expected bleeding risk.
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 | 0.012 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".