SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2026
Systematic review and meta-analysis of AI accuracy in warfarin dose prediction across ethnic groups.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe primary purpose of this study is to systematically evaluate how accurately artificial intelligence (AI) models can predict optimal warfarin dosing by incorporating both genetic variations-particularly in VKORC1 and CYP2C9-and clinical parameters.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library from inception until November 2024 for studies using machine learning to estimate warfarin dosing. Mean absolute error (MAE) was the primary outcome. Subgroup analyses were conducted by ethnicity. A random-effects model was used in R Software.
resultsSeventeen studies involving 50,859 patients were included. The pooled mean absolute error (MAE) using a random-effects model was 7.10 (95% CI: 5.52, 8.67; p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis by ethnicity revealed varying performance of AI-based warfarin dosing models. For the Asian population (4 studies), the pooled MAE was 4.45 (95% CI: 2.92, 5.97; p = 0.01). In contrast, the White population (3 studies) showed a higher pooled MAE of 10.25 (95% CI: 7.82, 12.68; p < 0.001), and the Black population (4 studies) had the highest pooled MAE at 12.27 (95% CI: 10.95, 13.59; p < 0.001). Funnel plot analysis revealed a symmetrical distribution of studies. For initial dosing algorithms, two studies reported MAEs of 0.24 and 5.43, respectively, reflecting variation based on population size and model type.
conclusionAI-based models enhance warfarin-dosing accuracy, but performance varies by ethnicity. Broader validation, especially in underrepresented groups such as Black populations, and methodological standardization are essential for equitable implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41553511What 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.