Risks and Benefits of Oral Anticoagulation Compared With Clopidogrel Plus Aspirin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation According to Stroke Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In ACTIVE-W, oral anticoagulation (OAC) was more efficacious than combined clopidogrel plus aspirin (C+A) in preventing vascular events in patients with atrial fibrillation. However, because OAC carries important bleeding complications, risk stratification schemes have been devised to identify patients for whom the absolute benefits of OAC exceed its risks. METHODS: Participants were risk-stratified with the widely-used CHADS(2) scheme. Treatment-specific rates of stroke and major bleeding were calculated for patients with a CHADS(2)=1 and compared to those with a CHADS(2)>1. RESULTS: Observed stroke rates for those with a CHADS(2)=1 were 1.25% per year on C+A and 0.43% per year on OAC (RR=2.96, 95% CI: 1.26 to 6.98, P=0.01). Among patients with a CHADS(2)>1, the stroke rates were 3.15% per year on C+A and 2.01% per year on OAC (RR=1.58, 95% CI: 1.11 to 2.24, P=0.01) (P for interaction between stroke risk category and efficacy of OAC=0.19). The risk of major bleeding during OAC was significantly lower among patients with CHADS(2)=1 (1.36% per year) compared with CHADS(2)>1 (2.75% per year) (RR=0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.79, P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: In this clinical trial, patients with a CHADS(2)=1 had a low risk of stroke, yet still derived a modest (<1% per year) but statistically significant absolute reduction in stroke with OAC and had low rates of major hemorrhage on OAC.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".