Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically, because of the difficulty of using warfarin safely and effectively, many patients with cardioembolic stroke who should have been anticoagulated were instead given ineffective antiplatelet therapy (or no antithrombotic therapy). With the arrival of new oral anticoagulants that are not significantly more likely than aspirin to cause severe haemorrhage, everything has changed. Because antiplatelet agents are much less effective in preventing cardioembolic stroke, it is now more prudent to anticoagulate patients in whom cardioembolic stroke is strongly suspected. Recent advances include the recognition that intermittent atrial fibrillation is better detected with more prolonged monitoring of the cardiac rhythm, and that percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) may reduce the risk of stroke. However, because in most patients with stroke and PFO the PFO is incidental, this should be reserved for patients in whom paradoxical embolism is likely. A high shunt grade on transcranial Doppler saline studies, and clinical clues to paradoxical embolism, can help in appropriate selection of patients for percutaneous closure. For patients with atrial fibrillation who cannot be anticoagulated, ablation of the left atrial appendage is an emerging option. It is also increasingly recognised that high levels of homocysteine, often due to undiagnosed metabolic deficiency of vitamin B 12 , markedly increase the risk of stroke in atrial fibrillation, and that B vitamins (folic acid and B 12 ) do prevent stroke by lowering homocysteine. However, with regard to B 12 , methylcobalamin should probably be used instead of cyanocobalamin. Many important considerations for judicious application of therapies to prevent cardioembolic stroke are discussed.
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 | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.010 |
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".