MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1595194866 · doi:10.1161/str.45.suppl_1.tmp102

Abstract T MP102: Antithrombotic Therapy After Acute Ischemic Stroke in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

2014· article· en· W1595194866 on OpenAlexaffabout
Emer R. McGrath, Moira K. Kapral, Jiming Fang, John W. Eikelboom, Aengus ó Conghaile, Michelle Canavan, Martin O’Donnell

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAntithromboticAtrial fibrillationStroke (engine)Internal medicineMyocardial infarctionCardiologyRegimenFibrinolytic agent

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: For patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and ischemic stroke (IS), current guidelines recommend oral anticoagulation (OAC) alone for secondary stroke prevention. In a large prospective cohort of patients with acute IS and AF, we describe adherence with antithrombotic guidelines at hospital discharge and the association between antithrombotic regimen on discharge and risk of major vascular events and bleeding. Methods: Consecutive patients admitted with acute IS and AF included in the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network (Jul 03-Mar 08). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine the association between antithrombotic regimen on discharge and time to the composite of death or readmission for recurrent stroke, myocardial infarction or major bleeding. Results: 2,162 patients were hospitalized with acute IS and AF; 42% had severe stroke (mRankin 4-5 on discharge) and 29% had prior coronary heart disease (CHD). Median duration of follow-up was 3.3 (IQR 1.0-5.4) years. At discharge, 8.0% were prescribed no antithrombotic therapy, 21.6% antiplatelet (AP) alone, 39.3% OAC alone and 31.1% combination OAC and AP. Compared to OAC alone, no antithrombotic (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.23-1.86) and AP therapy (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.14-1.50), were associated with an increased risk of the primary outcome, while combination OAC and AP was associated with a trend towards a reduced risk of the composite (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80-1.04). No antithrombotic (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.80-1.90) and AP therapy alone (HR 1.13 95% CI 0.86-1.48), were associated with a trend towards an increased risk of admission for a thrombotic event (recurrent IS or MI), while combination OAC and AP was associated with a trend towards a reduced risk (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.66-1.09), compared to OAC alone on discharge. Results were consistent in subgroups with severe stroke. In those with CHD, use of OAC and AP was associated with a suggestion of a reduced risk of the composite (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.61-1.02). Conclusions: Following IS in patients with AF, 30% of patients are not managed according to current antithrombotic guideline recommendations. Compared to antiplatelet therapy, OAC on discharge reduces the composite of mortality and major vascular events, even in patients with severe stroke.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→