MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045913143 · doi:10.1001/jama.288.19.2441

Oral Anticoagulants vs Aspirin in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

2002· review· en· W2045913143 on OpenAlexaff
Carl van Walraven, Robert G. Hart, Daniel E. Singer, Andreas Laupacis, Stuart Connolly, Palle Petersen, Peter J. Koudstaal, Yuchiao Chang, B S P Hellemons

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAspirinAtrial fibrillationStroke (engine)Internal medicineHazard ratioRelative riskAnticoagulantConfidence intervalOral anticoagulantIncidence (geometry)Randomized controlled trialCardiologyWarfarin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) have an increased risk of stroke and other vascular events. OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of vascular and bleeding events in patients with nonvalvular AF treated with vitamin K -inhibiting oral anticoagulants or acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin). DESIGN: Pooled analysis of patient-level data from 6 published, randomized clinical trials. PATIENTS: A total of 4052 patients with AF randomly assigned to receive therapeutic doses of oral anticoagulant or aspirin with or without low-dose oral anticoagulants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, other cardiovascular events, all-cause death, and major bleeding events. Person-year incidence rates were calculated to provide crude comparisons. Relative efficacy was assessed using proportional hazards modeling stratified by study. The variation of the oral anticoagulant's relative effect by pertinent patient factors was explored with interaction terms. All analyses were conducted using the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Patients receiving oral anticoagulant and aspirin were balanced for important prognostic factors. There was no significant heterogeneity between trials in the relative efficacy of oral anticoagulant vs aspirin for any outcome. Patients receiving oral anticoagulant were significantly less likely to experience any stroke (2.4 vs 4.5 events per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-0.71), ischemic stroke (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.37-0.63), or cardiovascular events (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59-0.85) but were more likely to experience major bleeding (2.2 vs 1.3 events per 100 patient-years; HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.21-2.41). The reduction in ischemic stroke risk was similar in patients with paroxysmal AF (1.5 vs 4.7 events per 100 patient-years; HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.16-0.61; P<.001). Treating 1000 patients with AF for 1 year with oral anticoagulant rather than aspirin would prevent 23 ischemic strokes while causing 9 additional major bleeds. Overall all-cause survival did not differ but appeared to improve for oral anticoagulant patients 3 years after therapy was started. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with aspirin, oral anticoagulant significantly decreases the risk of all strokes, ischemic strokes, and cardiovascular events for patients with nonvalvular chronic or paroxysmal AF but modestly increases the absolute risk of major bleeding. The balance of benefits and risks varies by patient subgroup.

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 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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.009
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.160
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations720
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207