Stroke Prevention for Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: Beyond the Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common serious heart rhythm disorder, with a lifetime incidence of 1 in 4 for patients >40 years of age[1]. AF is a major cause of death and disability, as it is associated with a 4-5 fold increase in the risk of ischemic stroke[2]. In patients with AF, oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy can reduce the risk of stroke by about two-thirds and the risk of all-cause mortality by approximately one-quarter, but is associated with an increased risk of bleeding[3], [4]. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common serious heart rhythm disorder and is associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke. This risk can be moderated with oral anticoagulation therapy, but the decision to do so must be balanced against the risks of bleeding. Herein, we discuss three emerging areas where more high-quality evidence is required to guide risk stratification: 1) the relationships between the pattern and burden of AF and stroke 2) the risk conferred by short episodes of device-detected "sub-clinical" atrial fibrillation (SCAF) and 3) the significance of AF that occurs transiently with stress (AFOTS), as is often detected during medical illness or after surgery. Risk stratification is important to identify patients with AF who can benefit from OAC therapy. There are, however, several common clinical scenarios where guidelines do not yet provide direction for stroke prevention; or do so based on limited high-quality evidence.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".