P514Do atrial fibrillation patients with history of cerebrovascular accidents receive guideline-concordant stroke preventive therapies? Insights from the prospective SPRINT-AF registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Introduction: Canadian and international guidelines recommend that atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) should be treated with oral anticoagulation (OAC), preferably with a novel agent (NOAC). Whether these recommendations are adhered in clinical practice is not well defined. Purpose: We examined the patterns and rates of OAC use and reasons for use of NOAC agents vs. warfarin among AF patients with a history of stroke/TIA. Methods: Phase-II of the Stroke Prevention and Rhythm INTerventions in Atrial Fibrillation (SPRINT-AF) registry prospectively enrolled 2,499 patients with non-valvular AF at 132 sites in Canada (Nov 2013 to March 2016). We report on data from the first 2,215 patients enrolled. Eligibility criteria included documented AF within the past 10 years, absence of a non-AF indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC), and informed consent. Patients were seen in study follow-up at baseline and 3 months, and underwent centralized follow-up at 6 and 12 months.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".