Management of anticoagulation in rate controlled atrial fibrillation: A three-step approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atrial Fibrillation is the most common type of cardiac arrhythmia managed in clinical practice. This condition predisposes patients to a multitude of potential complications that can be managed or prevented by medical or surgical means. Such complications include stroke, hemorrhage, or heart failure, among others. Although surgical intervention may be a viable option in some cases, pharmacological rate-control is a less invasive and more robust method in preventing the genesis of these sequelae. However, current guidelines regarding pharmacologic control of atrial fibrillation sequelae may be difficult to interpret. Based upon clinical prediction rules derived from large-scale clinical trials, we provide a simple three-step sequential algorithm that clinicians may use as guidelines when managing patients with rate controlled atrial fibrillation. These protocols can help clinicians decide if anticoagulation medication is indicated (CHA2DS2-VASc score), select the appropriate agent for anticoagulation (SAMe-TT2R2 score), and anticipate a high risk of hemorrhage (HAS-BLED score).
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 | 0.003 | 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".