Bleeding Risk Assessment in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Who Are Taking Oral Anticoagulants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prevention of thromboembolism is the key priority in the management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Clinical decisions on antithrombotic management should be based on the balance between an individual's thromboembolic and hemorrhagic risk. The HAS-BLED score is a simple and user-friendly tool for the assessment of bleeding risk. It is recommended for bleeding risk assessment by the 2010 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of AF, and the latest guidelines of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society for the prevention of stroke and systemic thromboembolism in patients with AF and atrial flutter. A HAS-BLED score ≥ 3 indicates high risk for hemorrhage and suggests that modifiable risk factors affecting bleeding (eg, blood pressure, hepatic/renal function, international normalized ratio, antiplatelet agents, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) be reviewed and corrected. Patients at high risk for stroke (CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 2) and hemorrhage (HAS-BLED score ≥ 3) seem to gain significant benefit from oral anticoagulants. As a general rule, oral anticoagulants should be considered for all patients with AF, except those at very low risk for stroke (CHA2DS2-VASc score of 0) and those at extremely high risk for bleeding. The newer oral anticoagulants (eg, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban) are promising alternatives to vitamin K antagonists for the prevention of stroke in patients with nonvalvular 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".