MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884004244 · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2018-110992

Uncertainty surrounds anticoagulation risks and benefits in patients with chronic kidney disease with atrial fibrillation

2018· letter· en· W2884004244 on OpenAlexaff
David Massicotte‐Azarniouch, Manish M. Sood

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ evidence-based medicine · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationStroke (engine)Kidney diseaseObservational studyPopulationInternal medicineIntensive care medicineCardiologyDiseaseRandomized controlled trialHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commentary on: Kumar S, de Lusignan S, McGovern A, et al . Ischaemic stroke, haemorrhage, and mortality in older patients with chronic kidney disease newly started on anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation: a population based study from UK primary care. BMJ . 2018:k342. doi:10.1136/bmj.k342 In the general population anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation (AF) reduces the risk for stroke. However, there is a lack of randomised controlled trials of anticoagulation in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). This is problematic since with declining kidney function, individuals are at a higher risk of AF, a thromboembolic (TE) stroke or a major haemorrhagic event. This clinical dilemma is further highlighted in those of advanced age who reap the most benefits from anticoagulation, but who are at the highest risk for bleeding complications. To date, two observational studies have examined the outcomes of anticoagulation in patients …

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Observational
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial · Commentary

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ evidence-based medicineSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207