Using Artificial Intelligence to Reduce the Risk of Nonadherence in Patients on Anticoagulation Therapy
Open accessAbstract
Background and Purpose—: This study evaluated the use of an artificial intelligence platform on mobile devices in measuring and increasing medication adherence in stroke patients on anticoagulation therapy. The introduction of direct oral anticoagulants, while reducing the need for monitoring, have also placed pressure on patients to self-manage. Suboptimal adherence goes undetected as routine laboratory tests are not reliable indicators of adherence, placing patients at increased risk of stroke and bleeding. Methods—: A randomized, parallel-group, 12-week study was conducted in adults (n=28) with recently diagnosed ischemic stroke receiving any anticoagulation. Patients were randomized to daily monitoring by the artificial intelligence platform (intervention) or to no daily monitoring (control). The artificial intelligence application visually identified the patient, the medication, and the confirmed ingestion. Adherence was measured by pill counts and plasma sampling in both groups. Results—: For all patients (n=28), mean (SD) age was 57 years (13.2 years) and 53.6% were women. Mean (SD) cumulative adherence based on the artificial intelligence platform was 90.5% (7.5%). Plasma drug concentration levels indicated that adherence was 100% (15 of 15) and 50% (6 of 12) in the intervention and control groups, respectively. Conclusions—: Patients, some with little experience using a smartphone, successfully used the technology and demonstrated a 50% improvement in adherence based on plasma drug concentration levels. For patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants, absolute improvement increased to 67%. Real-time monitoring has the potential to increase adherence and change behavior, particularly in patients on direct oral anticoagulant therapy. Clinical Trial Registration—: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02599259.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
AI-assisted tools have been successfully applied in various clinical settings to assist diagnosis, improve therapy, and predict risk of mortality.
“AI-assisted tools have been successfully applied in various clinical settings to assist diagnosis [5], improve therapy [6], and predict risk of mortality [7].”
From Randomized Controlled Trials of Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Practice: Systematic Review (2022) · cites this paper as [6]
An AI platform on mobile devices was effective and improved medication adherence in stroke patients by 50%.
“A study evaluated the use of an AI platform on mobile devices in measuring and enhancing medication adherence in stroke patients. The study demonstrated that the platform was effective and improved adherence by 50%. 67”
From Artificial Intelligence and Decision-Making in Healthcare: A Thematic Analysis of a Systematic Review of Reviews (2024) · cites this paper as [67]
The initial literature review identified 316 registered clinical trials for AI interventions on ClinicalTrials.gov, of which 62 were completed and 7 had published results.
“There were 316 registered trials, of which 62 were completed and 7 had published results30,38–43.”
From Reporting guidelines for clinical trial reports for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the CONSORT-AI extension (2020) · cites this paper as [40]
The Methods and Results describe one randomized trial of an AI platform for anticoagulation adherence, not a review of registered AI-intervention trials. Searches for the figures 316, 62, and 7 and for a ClinicalTrials.gov literature review found no passage in our copy reporting the claimed counts; the paper mentions ClinicalTrials.gov only to give its own trial registration. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 13 · Cited by 311
- Authors
- Labovitz, D. L., Shafner, L., Reyes Gil, M., Virmani, D., & Hanina, A.
- Affiliations
- Montefiore Medical Center (US)
- From the Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York (D.L.L., M.R.G., D.V.); and AiCure, New York, NY (L.S., A.H.).
- Venue
- Stroke
- Published
- 2017-05
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1416-1419
- ISSN
- 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4628
- PMC
- PMC5432369
- OpenAlex
- W2604186734
- Cited by
- 311
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 5
- FWCI
- 24.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Stroke (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (R44TR000873)
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
- Keywords
- medication adherence, anticoagulation, direct oral anticoagulants, artificial intelligence, mobile health apps, ischemic stroke, pill count, plasma drug concentration, self-management, bleeding risk
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Anticoagulants, Artificial Intelligence, Brain Ischemia, Female, Humans, Male, Medical Informatics Applications, Middle Aged, Stroke, Medication Adherence, Mobile Applications, Patient Outcome Assessment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review