Analysis of health care costs over a one-year period following anticoagulant therapy among Ontario patients diagnosed with atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation patients are at high risk of ischemic strokes, which can be drastically reduced using oral anticoagulants (OACs). Warfarin has been the standard OAC for this population but its effectiveness rests on consistent monitoring with the potential for severe bleeding events. Newer OACs, like rivaroxaban and apixaban, address these drawbacks but have a comparatively higher upfront cost. Uncertainty remains over which OAC is cost-saving from a health care system perspective. Using a retrospective cohort study design and inverse probability weighting regression adjustment estimators, one-year health care costs among patients treated with warfarin, rivaroxaban, and apixaban were compared. Compared to warfarin, rivaroxaban and apixaban treatments are cost-saving with per-patient one-year total health care savings at $2,436 and $1,764, respectively. This was driven by significant cost savings in hospitalization, emergency department visits, and physician visits for rivaroxaban and apixaban compared to warfarin. These results can influence provincial OAC reimbursement policies.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".