Percutaneous Closure of the Left Atrial Appendage in Atrial Fibrillation, Second Thoughts?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Life expectancy of the population is steadily increasing world wide. Consequently, the incidence and ultimately the prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) and it's sequelae will be rising proportionately. It is estimated that 3-5% of persons above 65 years of age have chronic AF, 30% of which will suffer at least one stroke. On the other hand, chronic AF is responsible for about 20% of all cerebrovascular accidents. Predictors of stroke in AF have been defined by the CHADS2 score, and in these patients, oral anticoagulation has been the cornerstone of thromboembolic disease prevention. Because elderly patients have an increased risk of bleeding complications even under the newer antagonists of Factor Xa and direct Thrombin inhibitors, percutaneous occlusion of the left atrial appendage (LAA) as the main thrombogenic source offers an attractive alternative to permanent anticoagulation. This promising new therapeutic approach is put into clinical real world perspective.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".