P3612Antithrombotic use amongst patients at low stroke risk as defined by the CHA2DS2-VASc score: Insight from the prospective SPRINT-AF registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Introduction: Despite absence of benefit and guideline endorsement, a non-trivial proportion of atrial fibrillation (AF) patients are still treated with oral anticoagulation (OAC) even though their stroke risk is considered low (<1%/year). Purpose: We examined the rates and potential reasons of OAC use amongst patients at low risk for stroke, defined by CHA2DS2-VASc=0 or =1 (on the basis of female sex). Methods: We enrolled 2,499 AF patients from 132 community-based sites in Canada (from Nov 2013 to March 2016) in a prospective observational registry. Here, 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 willingness to give informed consent. Patients were seen in study follow-up at baseline and at 3 months, and underwent centralized follow up at 6 and 12 months. Patients with CHA2DS2-VASc =0 or =1 (on the basis of female sex) were identified. Among these patients, we examined the rates and patterns of antithrombotic use in this low-risk subgroup.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".