Atrial Fibrillation and Coronary Artery Disease: Deciding on The Best Antithrombotic Regimen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a chronic progressive disease characterized by exacerbations and remissions. Up to 20–30% of patients with AF also have coronary artery disease (CAD). In patients with concomitant AF and CAD, the management of antithrombotic therapy is challenging. Oral anticoagulation (OAC) is indicated for the prevention of AF-related stroke and systemic embolism, whereas antiplatelet therapy is indicated for the prevention of coronary events. Each of these therapeutic avenues offers a relative efficacy benefit (e.g., dual antiplatelet therapy [DAPT] is more effective than OAC alone in reducing cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and ischemic coronary events in an ACS population), but with a relative compromise (e.g., DAPT is significantly inferior to OAC for the prevention of stroke/systemic embolism in an AF population at increased risk of AF-related stroke). The purpose of this review is to explore the current evidence and rationale for antithrombotic treatment strategies in patients with both AF and CAD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".