Interventions for the prevention of postoperative atrial fibrillation in adult patients undergoing noncardiac thoracic surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: 1. To determine if adults undergoing noncardiac thoracic surgery who receive a prophylactic intervention have a lower incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation (AF) than patients who do not receive a prophylactic intervention. 2. To determine if there are adverse events associated with the use of these prophylactic interventions. Specifically we will determine if there are differences in the incidence of strokes, ventricular arrhythmias and hypotension. For the purpose of this review, prophylactic interventions are new interventions administered to patients undergoing noncardiac thoracic surgery for the purpose of reducing the incidence of AF in those patients who are initially in sinus rhythm. The interventions are grouped into the following classes of intervention: A) cardiovascular agents, B) elemental supplementation, C) anti‐inflammatory agents. These interventions are to be administered either in the preoperative period, during the operation, or immediately at the end of the operation. We will not consider maintaining anti‐arrhythmic medication in patients who are already receiving the medication as a prophylactic intervention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".