Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34889080›Full record

ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2022

Stable warfarin dose prediction in sub-Saharan African patients: A machine-learning approach and external validation of a clinical dose-initiation algorithm.

Innocent G Asiimwe, Marc Blockman, Karen Cohen, Clint Cupido, Claire Hutchinson, Barry Jacobson, Mohammed Lamorde, Jennie Morgan, Johannes P Mouton, Doreen Nakagaayi and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Machine Learning for Warfarin Therapy: A Systematic Review.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

18 authors.

Innocent G AsiimweDepartment of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, The Wolfson Centre for Personalized Medicine, Medical Research Council Centre for Drug Safety Science, Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1196-1822
Marc BlockmanDivision of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Karen CohenDivision of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Clint CupidoVictoria Hospital Internal Medicine Research Initiative, Victoria Hospital Wynberg, Cape Town, South Africa.
Claire HutchinsonDepartment of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, The Wolfson Centre for Personalized Medicine, Medical Research Council Centre for Drug Safety Science, Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Barry JacobsonDepartment of Molecular Medicine and Haematology, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Mohammed LamordeInfectious Diseases Institute, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda.
Jennie MorganMetro District Health Services, Western Cape Department of Health, Cape Town, South Africa.
Johannes P MoutonDivision of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Doreen NakagaayiUganda Heart Institute, Kampala, Uganda.ORCID 0000-0003-4010-9951
Emmy OkelloUganda Heart Institute, Kampala, Uganda.
Elise SchapkaitzDepartment of Molecular Medicine and Hematology, Charlotte Maxeke Johannesburg Academic Hospital National Health Laboratory System Complex and University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Christine Sekaggya-WiltshireInfectious Diseases Institute, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda.
Jerome R SemakulaInfectious Diseases Institute, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda.
Catriona WaittDepartment of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, The Wolfson Centre for Personalized Medicine, Medical Research Council Centre for Drug Safety Science, Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Eunice J ZhangDepartment of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, The Wolfson Centre for Personalized Medicine, Medical Research Council Centre for Drug Safety Science, Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Andrea L JorgensenDepartment of Health Data Science, Institute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Munir PirmohamedDepartment of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, The Wolfson Centre for Personalized Medicine, Medical Research Council Centre for Drug Safety Science, Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7534-7266

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/L006758/1National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) 16/137/101Wellcome Trust 222075/Z/20/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Warfarin remains the most widely prescribed oral anticoagulant in sub-Saharan Africa. However, because of its narrow therapeutic index, dosing can be challenging. We have therefore (a) evaluated and compared the performance of 21 machine-learning techniques in predicting stable warfarin dose in sub-Saharan Black-African patients and (b) externally validated a previously developed Warfarin Anticoagulation in Patients in Sub-Saharan Africa (War-PATH) clinical dose-initiation algorithm. The development cohort included 364 patients recruited from eight outpatient clinics and hospital departments in Uganda and South Africa (June 2018-July 2019). Validation was conducted using an external validation cohort (270 patients recruited from August 2019 to March 2020 in 12 outpatient clinics and hospital departments). Based on the mean absolute error (MAE; mean of absolute differences between the actual and predicted doses), random forest regression (12.07 mg/week; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.39-13.76) was the best performing machine-learning technique in the external validation cohort, whereas the worst performing technique was model trees (17.59 mg/week; 95% CI, 15.75-19.43). By comparison, the simple, commonly used regression technique (ordinary least squares) performed similarly to more complex supervised machine-learning techniques and achieved an MAE of 13.01 mg/week (95% CI, 11.45-14.58). In summary, we have demonstrated that simpler regression techniques perform similarly to more complex supervised machine-learning techniques. We have also externally validated our previously developed clinical dose-initiation algorithm, which is being prospectively tested for clinical utility.

Indexed as

Machine LearningAdultAfrica South of the SaharaAge FactorsAlgorithmsAnticoagulantsBody WeightDrug Dosage CalculationsFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansInternational Normalized RatioMaleMiddle AgedModels, BiologicalReproducibility of ResultsAnticoagulantsSimvastatinWarfarin

Identifiers

PMID34889080
PMCPMC8752108

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.