MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607051786 · doi:10.1136/ebmed-2017-110711

Stroke rates vary substantially across cohorts of patients with atrial fibrillation

2017· letter· en· W2607051786 on OpenAlexaff
Luciano A. Sposato, Gustavo Saposnik

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of TorontoWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtrial fibrillationMedicineStroke (engine)Internal medicineIschaemic strokeCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commentary on: Quinn GR, Severdija ON, Chang Y, et al . Wide variation in reported rates of stroke across cohorts of patients with atrial fibrillation. Circulation 2017;135:208–19.[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Oral anticoagulants (OACs) substantially reduce stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF); however, they remain globally underused.1 One of the main reasons is the difficulty in stratifying AF-related ischaemic stroke risk at the individual patient level.1 ,2 Among scores stratifying AF-related stroke risk, CHA2-DS2-Vasc prevails in most recent international AF guidelines.3 ,4 Still, it remains unknown whether AF-related stroke risk is stable across regions, international cohorts or within specific CHA2-DS2-Vasc score strata. This systematic review included only studies reporting ischaemic stroke rates for patients with AF not on OACs, and assessed … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DCirculation%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1161%252FCIRCULATIONAHA.116.024057%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F27799272%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=circulationaha&resid=135/3/208&atom=%2Febmed%2F22%2F3%2F110.atom

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207