Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26305568›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Comparison of Nine Statistical Model Based Warfarin Pharmacogenetic Dosing Algorithms Using the Racially Diverse International Warfarin Pharmacogenetic Consortium Cohort Database.

Rong Liu, Xi Li, Wei Zhang, Hong-Hao Zhou

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. [Application of an interpretable neural network framework based on the LASSO-proj algorithm for warfarin dose prediction].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2025
    Article
  6. Machine Learning for Warfarin Therapy: A Systematic Review.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Rong LiuDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, P. R. China; Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Central South University, Hunan Key Laboratory of Pharmacogenetics, Changsha, P. R. China.
Xi LiDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, P. R. China; Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Central South University, Hunan Key Laboratory of Pharmacogenetics, Changsha, P. R. China.
Wei ZhangDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, P. R. China; Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Central South University, Hunan Key Laboratory of Pharmacogenetics, Changsha, P. R. China.
Hong-Hao ZhouDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, P. R. China; Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Central South University, Hunan Key Laboratory of Pharmacogenetics, Changsha, P. R. China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveMultiple linear regression (MLR) and machine learning techniques in pharmacogenetic algorithm-based warfarin dosing have been reported. However, performances of these algorithms in racially diverse group have never been objectively evaluated and compared. In this literature-based study, we compared the performances of eight machine learning techniques with those of MLR in a large, racially-diverse cohort.

methodsMLR, artificial neural network (ANN), regression tree (RT), multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS), boosted regression tree (BRT), support vector regression (SVR), random forest regression (RFR), lasso regression (LAR) and Bayesian additive regression trees (BART) were applied in warfarin dose algorithms in a cohort from the International Warfarin Pharmacogenetics Consortium database. Covariates obtained by stepwise regression from 80% of randomly selected patients were used to develop algorithms. To compare the performances of these algorithms, the mean percentage of patients whose predicted dose fell within 20% of the actual dose (mean percentage within 20%) and the mean absolute error (MAE) were calculated in the remaining 20% of patients. The performances of these techniques in different races, as well as the dose ranges of therapeutic warfarin were compared. Robust results were obtained after 100 rounds of resampling.

resultsBART, MARS and SVR were statistically indistinguishable and significantly out performed all the other approaches in the whole cohort (MAE: 8.84-8.96 mg/week, mean percentage within 20%: 45.88%-46.35%). In the White population, MARS and BART showed higher mean percentage within 20% and lower mean MAE than those of MLR (all p values < 0.05). In the Asian population, SVR, BART, MARS and LAR performed the same as MLR. MLR and LAR optimally performed among the Black population. When patients were grouped in terms of warfarin dose range, all machine learning techniques except ANN and LAR showed significantly higher mean percentage within 20%, and lower MAE (all p values < 0.05) than MLR in the low- and high- dose ranges.

conclusionOverall, machine learning-based techniques, BART, MARS and SVR performed superior than MLR in warfarin pharmacogenetic dosing. Differences of algorithms' performances exist among the races. Moreover, machine learning-based algorithms tended to perform better in the low- and high- dose ranges than MLR.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsDatabases as TopicInternationalityModels, StatisticalRacial GroupsCohort StudiesDose-Response Relationship, DrugFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsWarfarinWarfarin

Identifiers

PMID26305568
PMCPMC4549222

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.