Prevention of Vascular Events in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation:
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia that is associated with an increased risk for vascular events, particularly stroke. Two different therapies have been extensively evaluated for prevention of vascular events in AF: oral anticoagulation (such as warfarin), and aspirin. Placebo-controlled trials of warfarin have been performed and summarized in a meta-analysis. There is clear evidence of a benefit, with a relative risk reduction in stroke of 67% and in total vascular events of 42%. Aspirin also has been studied and is effective, but with a more modest benefit (relative risk reduction of 22%). Several studies have compared warfarin and aspirin, and showed a clear benefit in favor of warfarin for reduction of vascular events and stroke. Compared to aspirin, the risk of major hemorrhage with oral anticoagulation is increased by 70% to 100%. Current practice guidelines recommend oral anticoagulation therapy for high-risk patients with AF, unless there is an increased risk for bleeding. Nonetheless, oral anticoagulation therapy with drugs such as warfarin is difficult for both patients and physicians because of the increased risk for bleeding and the need for ongoing monitoring of coagulation status. Many patients do not receive anticoagulation therapy despite its proven benefits.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".