Novel nonpharmacologic approaches for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: results from clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common cardiac arrhythmia, confers a 5-fold risk of stroke that increases to 17-fold when associated with mitral stenosis. At this time, the most effective long-term solution to protect patients from stroke and thromboembolism is oral anticoagulation, either with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or a novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC). Despite the significant benefits they confer, both VKAs and NOACs are underused because of their increased potential for bleeding, and VKAs are underused because of their narrow therapeutic range, need for regular international normalized ratio checks, and interactions with food or medications. In patients with nonvalvular AF, approximately 90% of strokes originate from the left atrial appendage (LAA); in patients with rheumatic mitral valve disease, many patients (60%) have strokes that originate from the left atrium itself. Surgical LAA amputation or closure, although widely used to reduce stroke risk in association with cardiac surgery, is not currently performed as a stand-alone operation for stroke risk reduction because of its invasiveness. Percutaneous LAA closure, as an alternative to anticoagulation, has been increasingly used during the last decade in an effort to reduce stroke risk in nonvalvular AF. Several devices have been introduced during this time, of which one has demonstrated noninferiority compared with warfarin in a randomized controlled trial. This review describes the available technologies for percutaneous LAA closure, as well as a summary of the published trials concerning their safety and efficacy in reducing stroke risk in AF.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".