MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

P2896Two-year outcomes of dabigatran etexilate in patients with atrial fibrillation with and without a history of coronary artery disease: data from GLORIA-AF

2018· article· en· W2889407644 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan L. Halperin, Christine Teutsch, Menno V. Huisman, Hans‐Christoph Diener, Kenneth J. Rothman, Sara Bozzinì, Sérgio Dubner, Kristina Zint, Lionel Riou França, Miney Paquette, Gregory Y.H. Lip

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsBoehringer Ingelheim (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationDabigatranCoronary artery diseaseCardiologyInternal medicineDiseaseWarfarin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have a high prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD) ranging from 18% to 47%, due to common risk factors such as older age, hypertension and diabetes. Oral anticoagulation is required for AF patients with moderate-to-high stroke risk. The safety and effectiveness of dabigatran etexilate (dabigatran) for stroke prevention in AF has been shown in randomized trials and numerous database studies. Prospective data from routine clinical practice are less common. Purpose: This analysis from the global registry program GLORIA-AF describes clinical outcomes of dabigatran for up to 2 years in newly diagnosed AF patients with or without history of CAD. Methods: GLORIA-AF is a prospective, observational global registry of patients with newly diagnosed AF and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of ≥1. Patients prescribed dabigatran at baseline were followed for up to 2 years. CAD is defined here as history of coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction or angina pectoris. Baseline characteristics and event rates (incidence rates with 95% CI) in patients on dabigatran with and without a history of CAD are reported.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→