MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2562649888 · doi:10.1056/nejme1613474

Atrial Fibrillation and PCI — Do We Still Need Aspirin?

2016· letter· en· W2562649888 on OpenAlexaff
Sanjit S. Jolly, Madhu K. Natarajan

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAspirinAtrial fibrillationConventional PCIWarfarinCardiologyClopidogrelInternal medicineStroke (engine)Percutaneous coronary interventionMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a common clinical dilemma. Approximately 10 to 15% of patients undergoing PCI have a history of atrial fibrillation.1 Patients with atrial fibrillation are at increased risk for stroke, and warfarin has been shown to be superior to dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with clopidogrel plus aspirin for the prevention of stroke.2 However, DAPT has been shown to be markedly superior to aspirin plus warfarin for the prevention of stent thrombosis.3 This has led to the adoption of triple therapy with DAPT plus warfarin in patients with atrial . . .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0320.029
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of Medicine→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→