Beyond Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: Exploring Further Unmet Needs with Rivaroxaban
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With improved life expectancy and the aging population, the global burden of atrial fibrillation (AF) continues to increase, and with AF comes an estimated fivefold increased risk of ischaemic stroke. Prophylactic anticoagulant therapy is more effective in reducing the risk of ischaemic stroke in AF patients than acetylsalicylic acid or dual-antiplatelet therapy combining ASA with clopidogrel. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants are the standard of care for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular AF. The optimal anticoagulant strategy to prevent thromboembolism in AF patients who are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention and stenting, those who have undergone successful transcatheter aortic valve replacement and those with embolic stroke of undetermined source are areas of ongoing research. This article provides an update on three randomized controlled trials of rivaroxaban, a direct, oral factor Xa inhibitor, that are complete or are ongoing, in these unmet areas of stroke prevention: oPen-label, randomized, controlled, multicentre study explorIng twO treatmeNt stratEgiEs of Rivaroxaban and a dose-adjusted oral vitamin K antagonist treatment strategy in patients with Atrial Fibrillation who undergo Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PIONEER AF-PCI) trial; the New Approach riVaroxaban Inhibition of factor Xa in a Global trial vs Aspirin to prevenT Embolism in Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source (NAVIGATE ESUS) trial and the Global study comparing a rivAroxaban-based antithrombotic strategy to an antipLatelet-based strategy after transcatheter aortIc vaLve rEplacement to Optimize clinical outcomes (GALILEO) trial. The data from these studies are anticipated to help address continuing challenges for a range of patients at risk of stroke.
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 | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".