MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997219648 · doi:10.1136/ebmed-2014-110074

Prolonged cardiac monitoring after cryptogenic stroke superior to 24 h ECG in detection of occult paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

2014· letter· en· W1997219648 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniel J. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2014
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationInternal medicineCardiologyStroke (engine)AmbulatoryOccultPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commentary on : Gladstone DJ, Spring M, Dorian P, et al. Atrial fibrillation in patients with cryptogenic stroke. N Eng J Med 2014;370:2467–77.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Stroke remains a prevalent and devastating condition for many people across the world, it is a leading cause of disability and is associated with significant monetary and social losses, yet is considered to be a largely preventable disease. One-third of all strokes are considered cryptogenic after initial diagnostic evaluations. Cryptogenic stroke has been identified, only recently, as an important area of additional investigation. Part of the EMBRACE trial, Gladstone and colleagues’ study adds to mounting evidence that prolonged cardiac monitoring is needed to identify paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) in patients with cryptogenic stroke. In this open-label, multicenter trial in Canada, 572 patients over the age of 55 with a recent cryptogenic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) were randomised to conventional 24 h ECG monitoring (Holter monitor) versus 30-day non-invasive, ambulatory ECG … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DN%2BEng%2BJ%2BMed%26rft.volume%253D370%26rft.spage%253D2467%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1056%252FNEJMoa1311376%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F24963566%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa1311376&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=24963566&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F19%2F6%2F235.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000337804400004&link_type=ISI

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0220.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.012

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Other design
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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207