Revisiting sex differences in outcomes in non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a population-based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: In patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), it is uncertain whether the higher risk of ischaemic stroke in women reported in some studies is due to residual confounding. We assessed this association using standard time-fixed and more accurate time-dependent adjustment for confounders. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the computerized databases of the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec (RAMQ), we identified a cohort of patients with NVAF during 2000-2009 and RAMQ medication coverage. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of ischaemic stroke, death, and bleeding, associated with sex, adjusting for time-fixed covariates at cohort entry. This was compared with adjustment for time-dependent covariates using an age and time-matched nested case-control analysis. The cohort included 147 622 patients. During a mean follow-up of 2.9 years 11 326 patients had a stroke (incidence rate 2.6 per 100 per year). Using time-fixed adjustment for confounders, women had a moderately higher risk of ischaemic stroke than men (HR 1.16 (Confidence interval (CI) 95% 1.11-1.21). Matching on age and using time-dependent adjustment for confounders, women were not at higher risk of stroke than men (Rate Ratio 1.01; 95% CI 0.97-1.05). Mortality and bleeding rates were lower in women compared with men in both analyses. CONCLUSION: In NVAF, women were not at higher risk of thromboembolic events than men in our study. The small increased risk reported in previous studies may be related to residual confounding, in particular from insufficient control for age.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".