Cardiologists’ and nephrologists’ management of atrial fibrillation in hemodialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) is considered a standard of care, but for hemodialysis (HD) patients the benefits are unclear, and bleeding risks are high. Our study objective was to compare cardiologists' and nephrologists' stroke prevention practices in different patient risk scenarios. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional, online survey was distributed to members of three Canadian physician societies (Nephrology, Cardiovascular, Heart Rhythm), and to cardiologists affiliated with three Canadian Universities. The questionnaire included four AF scenarios in HD patients with varying stroke and bleeding risks. Physicians selected one of six antithrombotic therapy options for each scenario. RESULTS: Cardiologists were 3 times more likely than nephro-logists to choose anticoagulant therapy over both antiplatelet and no drug therapy, regardless of stroke or bleeding risk (p < 0.001). Physicians' drug therapy choices in regards to level of stroke and bleeding risk reflected the expected pattern based on current evidence. CONCLUSION: Cardiologists were more likely to prescribe anticoagulant therapy for AF in the HD population compared to nephrologists, regardless of patient stroke or bleeding risk.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".