Use of anticoagulation in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation: What guidelines recommend
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Atrial fibrillation in the elderly is a complex condition. In recent years, various clinical practice guidelines have been published on patients with atrial fibrillation. The majority of these guidelines make specific recommendations on the clinical characteristics and treatment of elderly patients. In this update, we review the specific comments on the recommendations concerning antithrombotic treatment in elderly patients. Method: An exhaustive search of the published guidelines in referential data sources was performed, up to February 28, 2015. Then, we reviewed the specific comments on the recommendations concerning antithrombotic treatment in elderly patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Results: We included the principal European, American and Canadian clinical practice guidelines. Conclusions: All elderly patients with atrial fibrillation should (unless contraindicated) undergo permanent anticoagulant treatment, although it is important to assess the risk of bleeding. It is important that renal function should be monitored during follow-up, especially when the patient has known renal failure or is taking dabigatran
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".