MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079279686 · doi:10.1253/circj.cj-15-0307

Is Low Body Weight a Novel Risk Factor for Thromboembolic Events in Patients With Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation?

2015· letter· en· W2079279686 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hirofumi Tomita, Ken Okumura

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Journal · 2015
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEisaiPfizerDaiichi-SankyoBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsAtrial fibrillationCardiologyInternal medicineMedicineRisk factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this issue of the Journal, Hamatani et al 5 address this important issue by analyzing data from the Fushimi AF Registry, a community-based Japanese prospective cohort.Patients with low body weight (LBW: ≤50 kg) showed a higher risk profile and a higher incidence of stroke/SE, but no difference in the incidence of major bleeding compared with those over 50 kg using multivariate and propensity score matching analyses.Although there have been several studies investigating the effect of obesity or overweight on the outcome for AF patients in Caucasian populations, the influence of LBW or low body mass index (BMI) has not been evaluated, because patients with low BMI (<18.5 kg/m 2 ) have been excluded from such studies.6-8 Furthermore, their conflicting results suggest that it is still uncertain whether obesity or overweight is a risk factor for thromboembolic events in AF patients.In an Asian population, Wang et al showed that underweight AF patients (BMI <18.5 kg/m 2 ) had a higher rate of cardiovascular mortality than either overweight or obese AF patients (BMI ≥24 kg/m 2 ), revention of cardioembolic stroke and systemic embolism (SE) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is of significance importance in the super-aging Japanese society, and therefore appropriate risk assessment and the following sufficient anticoagulation treatment are encouraged.The CHADS2 or CHA2DS2-VASc score has been used as a risk stratification scheme for non-valvular AF (NVAF) patients worldwide.1-4 In Europe and the United States, the CHA2DS2-VASc score is recommended (Figure 1), 1,2 whereas in Japan and Canada, the modified risk scheme based on the CHADS2 score is used.3,4 Female sex is not included as a risk in the Japanese or Canadian guidelines.Importantly, neither CHADS2 nor CHA2DS2-VASc includes body weight or related factors, because it is uncertain whether body weight itself is a risk factor for thromboembolic events in NVAF patients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.002
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation JournalSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207