MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2766283702 · doi:10.1111/hdi.12600

Anti‐thrombotic therapy for atrial fibrillation in patients with chronic kidney disease: Current views

2017· review· en· W2766283702 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rugheed Ghadban, Greg Flaker, Natraj Katta, Martin Alpert

Bibliographic record

VenueHemodialysis International · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWarfarinEdoxabanAtrial fibrillationApixabanKidney diseaseRivaroxabanDabigatranInternal medicineStroke (engine)HemodialysisCardiologyEmbolismIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) occurs in approximately one-third of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). The presence of CKD, particularly advanced CKD, confers increased risk of both thromboembolism and major bleeding in this group of patients who are already at risk for ischemic stroke and systemic embolism and at risk of bleeding due to anticoagulation. Studies assessing the effect of warfarin on risk of ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, and major bleeding have produced disparate results, particularly in patients with advanced CKD including those treated with hemodialysis. The direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC's) have been studied in patients with stage III (moderate) CKD and appear to be as effective or more effective (dabigatran 150 mg twice daily) than warfarin in preventing ischemic stroke or embolism in this group. Two of the DOAC's, apixaban and edoxaban, confer lower risk of major bleeding than warfarin with appropriate dose adjustments. Substantial gaps exist in our knowledge of anti-thrombotic therapy in patients with AF and CKD, primarily due to exclusion of patients with advanced CKD from randomized controlled trials comparing DOAC's with warfarin.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHemodialysis International→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→