The Canadian Community Utilization of Stroke Prevention Study in Atrial Fibrillation in the Emergency Department (C-CUSP ED)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Lack of oral anticoagulation prescription in the emergency department (ED) has been identified as a care gap in atrial fibrillation patients. This study seeks to determine whether the use of a tool kit for emergency physicians with a follow-up community-based atrial fibrillation clinic resulted in greater oral anticoagulation prescription at ED discharge than usual care. METHODS: This was a before-after study in 5 Canadian EDs in 3 cities. Patients who presented to the ED with atrial fibrillation were eligible for inclusion. The before phase (1) was retrospective; 2 after phases (2 and 3) were prospective: phase 2 used an oral anticoagulation prescription tool for emergency physicians and patient education materials, whereas phase 3 used the same prescription tool, patient materials, atrial fibrillation educational session, and follow-up in an atrial fibrillation clinic. Each phase was 1 year long. The primary outcome was the rate of new oral anticoagulation prescription at ED discharge for patients who were oral anticoagulation eligible and not receiving oral anticoagulation at presentation. RESULTS: score greater than or equal to 1. The rate of new oral anticoagulation prescription in phase 1 was 15.8% compared with 54.1% and 47.2%, in phases 2 and 3, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, the odds ratio for new oral anticoagulation prescription was 8.03 (95% confidence interval 3.52 to 18.29) for phase 3 versus 1. The 6-month rate of oral anticoagulation use was numerically but not significantly higher in phase 3 compared with phase 2 (71.6% versus 79.4%; adjusted odds ratio 2.30; 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 5.96). The rate of major bleeding at 6 months was 0%, 0.8%, and 1% in phases 1, 2, and 3, respectively. CONCLUSION: An oral anticoagulation prescription tool was associated with an increase in new oral anticoagulation prescription in the ED, irrespective of whether an atrial fibrillation clinic follow-up was scheduled. The use of an atrial fibrillation clinic was associated with a trend to a higher rate of oral anticoagulation at 6-month follow-up.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".