MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407007914 · doi:10.36838/v6i5.19

Optimization of Warfarin Dosing Using Machine Learning: A Literature Review

2024· review· en· W4407007914 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational journal of high school research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCargill (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDosingWarfarinComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMedicinePharmacologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Warfarin is an oral anticoagulant medication used to prevent conditions caused by blood clots.Due to the broad spectrum of variability among patients and the limited therapeutic margin, determining the appropriate dose for each individual is often difficult.To remediate the potentially fatal consequences that incorrect dosing can bring (such as thromboembolism or hemorrhaging), machine learning (ML) algorithms are used to enhance the accuracy of doses using clinical and pharmacogenetic variables.Researchers continue to build on previously published works to develop further methods for improving accuracy.Despite the advantages that ML techniques can bring, there are certain limitations when evaluating their performance in real clinical settings.For instance, warfarin research lacks diversity in demographics because most current papers only deal with the Caucasian, African/African American, and Asian populations.Those who don't fall under these specific categories are labeled as having a "missing" or "mixed" ethnicity, which may not accurately represent their ethnic demographic.Incorrect identification of patient information leads to inaccurate dose predictions, which can have detrimental consequences.This results in a disparity in the accuracy of medical treatment, a prevalent problem in all aspects of medicine.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score0.888

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.249
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational journal of high school researchSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207