Thromboembolic events occur despite sinus rhythm maintenance in patients treated for atrial fibrillation: The Canadian Trial of Atrial Fibrillation experience.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anticoagulation reduces the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. It is not clear whether patients who revert and are maintained in sinus rhythm should continue to receive warfarin. The recommendation is to anticoagulate these patients for a minimum of four weeks after cardioversion. Whether warfarin should be maintained for a longer period of time is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: To address this question, data from the Canadian Trial of Atrial Fibrillation were reviewed. Among the 403 patients, 81.9% had at least one risk factor for stroke, of whom only 60% were on warfarin. Nine thromboembolic events occurred in nine patients (2.2%): all had at least one risk factor for stroke. Six events occurred in patients who were either not anticoagulated (n=4) or for whom the international normalization ratio was subtherapeutic (n=2). Eight of the nine patients were in sinus rhythm at the last follow-up visit before and at the time of evaluation of the thromboembolic event. CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulants are underused in atrial fibrillation patients at risk of stroke. Thromboembolic events are most often associated with suboptimal levels of anticoagulation and they occur despite the appearance of sinus rhythm maintenance.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".