Bibliographic record
Abstract
When warfarin was the mainstay of anticoagulation for the prevention of cardioembolic stroke, the paradigm was essentially "we mustn't anticoagulate anyone unless we prove that the stroke was cardioembolic." Now that direct-acting oral anticoagulants are available, the paradigm should change. The risk of stroke is highest soon after the initial event, particularly in patients with more than one infarction. Direct-acting oral anticoagulants are not significantly more likely than aspirin to cause severe hemorrhage, and it is now clear that patients with paradoxical embolism are better treated with anticoagulant than aspirin. Percutaneous closure of a patent foramen ovale is better than aspirin, but not better than anticoagulant, and some patients with paradoxical embolism may be better treated with anticoagulant than with percutaneous closure, which cannot prevent pulmonary embolism. Patients in whom cardioembolic stroke is strongly suspected should probably be anticoagulated pending the results of investigations such as echocardiography and prolonged cardiac monitoring for atrial fibrillation, and some of them, in whom the suspicion of a cardioembolic source is very strong, should probably be anticoagulated long term, even if such investigations do not confirm a cardiac source.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".