Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stroke prevention with appropriate thromboprophylaxis still remains central to the management of atrial fibrillation (AF). Nonetheless, stroke risk in AF is not homogeneous, but despite stroke risk in AF being a continuum, prior stroke risk stratification schema have been used to 'artificially' categorise patients into low, moderate and high risk stroke strata, so that the patients at highest risk can be identified for warfarin therapy. Data from recent large cohort studies show that by being more inclusive, rather than exclusive, of common stroke risk factors in the assessment of the risk for stroke and thromboembolism in AF patients, we can be so much better in assessing stroke risk, and in optimising thromboprophylaxis with the resultant reduction in stroke and mortality. Thus, there has been a recent paradigm shift towards getting better at identifying the 'truly low risk' patients with AF who do not even need antithrombotic therapy, whilst those with one or more stroke risk factors can be treated with oral anticoagulation, whether as well-controlled warfarin or one or the new oral anticoagulant drugs. The new European guidelines on AF have evolved to deemphasise the artificial low/moderate/high risk strata (as they were not very predictive of thromboembolism, anyway) and stressed a risk factor based approach (within the CHA(2) DS(2)-VASc score) given that stroke risk is a continuum. Those categorised as 'low risk' using the CHA(2) DS(2)-VASc score are 'truly low risk' for thromboembolism, and the CHA(2) DS(2)-VASc score performs as good as-and possibly better--than the CHADS(2) score in predicting those at 'high risk'. Indeed, those patients with a CHA(2) DS(2)-VASc score = 0 are 'truly low risk' so that no antithrombotic therapy is preferred, whilst in those with a CHA(2) DS(2)-VASc score of 1 or more, oral anticoagulation is recommended or preferred. Given that guidelines should be applicable for >80% of the time, for >80% of the patients, this stroke risk assessment approach covers the majority of the patients we commonly seen in everyday clinical practice, and considers the common stroke risk factors seen in these patients. The European guidelines also do stress that antithrombotic therapy is necessary in all patients with AF unless they are age <65 years and truly low risk. Indeed, some patients with 'female gender' only as a single risk factor (but still CHA(2) DS(2)-VASc score of 1, due to gender) do not need anticoagulation, especially if they fulfil the criterion of "age <65 and lone AF, and very low risk". In the European and Canadian guidelines, bleeding risk assessment is also emphasised, and the simple validated HAS-BLED score is recommended. A HAS-BLED score of ≥ 3 represents a sufficiently high risk such that caution and/or regular review of a patient is needed. It also makes the clinician think of correctable common bleeding risk factors, and the availability of such a score allows an informed assessment of bleeding risk in AF patients, when antithrombotic therapy is being initiated.
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 | 0.008 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".