ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2023
Evaluation of supervised machine learning algorithms in predicting the poor anticoagulation control and stable weekly doses of warfarin.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of AI accuracy in warfarin dose prediction across ethnic groups.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Fixed dose versus 3-day loading dose warfarin initiation in atrial fibrillation: effects on INR stabilization and time in the therapeutic range.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Explainable Artificial Intelligence Unravels the Possible Distinct Roles of VKORC1 and CYP2C9 in Predicting Warfarin Anticoagulation Control.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence and machine learning for precision warfarin dosing: a comprehensive narrative review.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Review
- Predicting survival benefits of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in lung cancer patients: a machine learning approach using real-world data.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- A novel machine learning model to predict high on-treatment platelet reactivity on clopidogrel in Asian patients after percutaneous coronary intervention.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence, medications, pharmacogenomics, and ethics.Pharmacogenomics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMachine learning algorithms (MLAs) carry a huge potential in identifying predicting factors and are being explored for their utility in the field of personalized medicine.
aimWe aimed to investigate MLAs for identifying predictors (clinical and genetic) of poor anticoagulation status (ACS) and stable weekly warfarin dose (SWWD).
methodClinical factors, in addition to the CYP2C9, VKORC1, and CYP4F2 genotypes, were obtained for patients receiving warfarin for at least the previous six months. The C5.0 decision tree classification algorithm was used to predict poor ACS while classification and regression tree analysis (CART), in addition to the Chi-square automatic interaction detector (CHAID), was used to predict SWWD. The percentage of patients within 20% of the actual dose, root mean squared error (RMSE), and area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUROC) were identified as performance indicators of the models.
resultsIn the C5.0 classification decision tree, the CYP4F2 genotype was the strongest predictor of ACS (AUROC = 0.53). In the CART analysis of SWWD, VKORC1 polymorphisms were the most significant predictor, followed by the CYP2C9 genotype (percentage of patients within 20% of the actual dose = 38.2%, RMSE = 13.6). For the CHAID algorithm, the percentage of patients within 20% of the actual dose was 49%, while the RMSE was found to be 13.4.
conclusionGenetic and non-genetic predictive factors were identified by the MLAs for ACS and SWWD. Further, the need to externally validate the MLAs in a prospective study was highlighted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36306062What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.