Ischaemic stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation and high bleeding risk: opportunities and challenges for percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are at an increased risk of ischaemic stroke. The efficacy of stroke prevention with vitamin K antagonists in these patients has been well established. However, associated bleeding risks may offset the therapeutic benefits in patients with risk factors for bleeding. Despite improvements achieved by novel oral anticoagulants, bleeding remains a clinically relevant problem, especially gastrointestinal bleeding. Percutaneous occlusion of the left atrial appendage (LAA) may be considered as an alternative stroke prevention therapy in AF patients with a high bleeding risk. This paper explores patient groups in whom oral anticoagulation may be challenging and percutaneous LAA occlusion (LAAO) has a potentially better risk-benefit balance. The current status of LAAO and future directions are reviewed, and particular challenges for LAA occlusion requiring further clinical data are discussed. This article is a summary of the Third Global Summit on LAA occlusion, 15 March 2013, Barcelona, Spain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".