What do the guidelines suggest for non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant use for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs, e.g. Warfarin) have been the cornerstone of stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) for well over 50 years, being highly efficacious in reducing stroke and mortality in this common arrhythmia. More recent data have shown the relative efficacy, safety, and convenience of the non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs) over warfarin in patients with AF. Guidelines throughout Europe, America, and Canada acknowledge the value of NOACs and many recommend their use as first-line therapy, sometimes preferentially to warfarin. With the recent availability of reversal agents, there is little reason not to prescribe NOACs where appropriate. This article provides an overview of the current international guidelines with regard to NOAC use and highlights key areas by which emerging evidence may change the management of stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular 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 | 0.015 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
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".