The First Registry. Comparison of anticoagulant treatment inpatients with atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: The FIRST registry aimed to compare patients with atrial fibrillation treated with dabigatran or warfarin. Methods: The study was performed in 10 centres in the Czech Republic. Results: Upon enrolment, 33.2% and 35.6% of patients respectively showed sinus rhythm. The last dose of warfarin before changing to dabigatran was higher than the maintenance dose 6.4 ± 4.3 mg vs. 4.6 ± 3.2 mg (p < 0.001). The patients did not differ in the CHA2DS2-VASc score. The principal difference was in the HAS BLED score: 55.3% of patients treated with dabigatran demonstrated a score of three or more while only 33.5% of those treated with warfarin did (p < 0.001). In 14.7% of patients treated with dabigatran, serious bleeding was observed during the previous treatment with warfarin. In patients treated with warfarin serious bleeding occurred in 2.0%. The most frequent reason (56.6%) for changing over to dabigatran was the impossibility to maintain INR within the therapeutic range. Conclusion: Patients are transferred from warfarin to dabigatran in particular due to the impossibility to maintain INR within the therapeutic range, and these are more frequently patients with a higher bleeding risk.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".