5769Changes in thromboembolic risk profile and antithrombotic therapy use over a decade: a comparison of Euro Heart Survey on AF and EURObservational research programme AF pilot registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Awareness of atrial fibrillation (AF) risk factors and consequences has increased over time. Over the last decade, the European Society of Cardiology performed two observational registry studies on AF: the Euro Heart Survey on AF (EHS) [2005] and the EURObservational Research Programme AF Pilot Registry (EORP-AF) [2013]. We compared changes in baseline thromboembolic risk profile and patterns of antithrombotic therapy use between these two cohorts. Methods: A propensity score matching (PSM) based on age, gender, type of AF, BMI, sitting blood pressure and basic cardiovascular risk factors was built to match the two cohorts. After PSM the EHS and EORP-AF datasets, baseline thromboembolic risks (CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores) and patterns of antithrombotic therapy prescriptions were described. Results: A combined overall cohort of 5206 patients (59.1% males; mean [SD] age 68.4 [11.6] years) were available for analysis after PSM. Patients enrolled in EORP-AF had a higher stroke risk profile, with higher mean [SD] CHADS2 than EHS (1.9 [1.3] vs. 1.7 [1.2], p<0.001), and mean [SD] CHA2DS2-VASc (3.3 [1.8] vs. 2.9 [1.6], p<0.001). Both CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores were proportionally higher in EORP-AF than EHS (both p<0.001) [Figure, Upper Panel]. The proportion of patients with CHADS2 ≥2 and CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2 was higher in EORP-AF than EHS (61.2% vs 50.7%, p<0.001 and 81.8% vs 79.3%, p=0.021, respectively). A higher proportion of high-risk patients (CHADS2 ≥2 and CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2) were treated with oral anticoagulant (OAC) monotherapy in EORP-AF compared to EHS (57.2% vs. 56.0%, p<0.001 and 59.8% vs. 55.8%, p<0.001 respectively) [Figure, Lower Panel]. The use of antiplatelet monotherapy was lower in EORP-AF (13.3% vs. 27.6%, p<0.001 and 13.2% vs. 27.7%, p<0.001 respectively for CHADS2 ≥2 and CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2) but the proportion treated with both antiplatelet and OAC was higher in EORP-AF compared to EHS ones (26.1% vs. 9.4%, p<0.001 and 23.5% vs. 9.1%, p<0.001 respectively for CHADS2 ≥2 and CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2).
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".