Combined Antiplatelet Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation:
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most commonly encountered cardiac rhythm disorder, affects approximately 1% of the general population and is associated with serious complications, most notably ischemic stroke. AF-associated stroke occurs at an annual rate of 4.5%. Anticoagulation therapy with warfarin has been demonstrated in randomized controlled trials to reduce the risk for AF-related stroke by two thirds, but warfarin therapy is markedly underused in clinical practice because of its narrow therapeutic window and its implications on quality of life. This article reviews the present knowledge and potential future research avenues for the role of antiplatelet therapy in AF as an alternative to anticoagulation with warfarin for prevention of AF-associated stroke. Antiplatelet therapy recently has been shown to be protective against thrombotic events related to blood stasis. There is ample evidence from experimental and clinical studies that a combination of different antiplatelet agents may increase antithrombotic efficacy compared to monotherapy. Accordingly, a series of randomized controlled trials (ACTIVE [Atrial fibrillation Clopidogrel Trial with Irbesartan for prevention of Vascular Events]) has been designed to vigorously examine the role of combined antithrombotic therapy for prevention of vascular events, including stroke in high-risk AF patients. The ACTIVE program began patient enrollment in spring 2003.
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) | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".