Anticoagulation in patients at high risk of stroke without documented atrial fibrillation. Time for a paradigm shift?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is currently considered a risk factor for stroke. Depending on the severity of clinical factors (risk scores) a recommendation for full anticoagulation is made. Although AF is most certainly a risk factor for ischemic stroke, it is not necessarily the direct cause of it. The causality of association between AF and ischemic stroke is questioned by the reported lack of temporal relation between stroke events and AF paroxysms (or atrial high-rate episodes detected by devices). In different studies, only 2% of patients had subclinical AF > 6 minutes in duration at the time of stroke or systemic embolism. Is it time to consider AF only one more factor of endothelial disarray rather than the main contributor to stroke? In this "opinion paper" we propose to consider not only clinical variables predicting AF/stroke but also electrocardiographic markers of atrial fibrosis, as we postulate this as a strong indicator of risk of AF/stroke. We ask if it is time to change the paradigm and to consider, in some special situations, to protect patients (preventing stroke) who have no evidence of 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".