European Society of Cardiology Guideline-Adherent Antithrombotic Treatment and Risk of Mortality in Asian Patients with Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the risk of mortality in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients treated adherent to the 2012 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for stroke prevention and those who were not treated according to guideline recommendations. This study used the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. From 1996 to 2011, 354,649 newly diagnosed AF patients were identified as the study population. Among the study cohort, 45,595 and 309,054 patients were defined as Guideline-Adherent and Non-Adherent groups, respectively. During the follow up of 1,480,280 person-years, 133,552 (37.7%) patients experienced mortality. The risk of mortality was lower among AF patients whose treatment was adherent to the guideline recommendation for stroke prevention than those whose treatment was not (annual risk of mortality = 4.3% versus 10.0%) with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.62 (95% confidence interval = 0.61-0.64, p value < 0.001) after adjusting for age, gender, CHA2DS2-VASc score and antiplatelet therapy. The findings were consistently observed after propensity matching analysis. In conclusion, the risk of mortality was lower for AF patients who were treated according to the antithrombotic recommendations of the 2012 ESC guidelines, guided by the CHA2DS2-VASc score. Better efforts to implement guidelines would lead to improved outcomes for patients with AF.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".