MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3175688478 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044288

Phenotypes of atrial fibrillation diagnosed before-versus-after ischaemic stroke and TIA: study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021· review· en· W3175688478 on OpenAlexafffund
Amado Jiménez‐Ruiz, Juan‐Camilo Vargas‐González, Sebastián Fridman, Luciano A. Sposato

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
FundersLondon Health Sciences FoundationAcademic Medical Organization of Southwestern Ontario
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationMeta-analysisFunnel plotStroke (engine)Publication biasInternal medicineIncidence (geometry)MEDLINECardiologyCohort studyCohortSystematic review

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The underlying pathophysiology of atrial fibrillation (AF) detected after stroke (AFDAS) is relatively unknown. Preliminary evidence suggests AFDAS has a lower prevalence of cardiovascular comorbidities and higher incidence of insular cortex involvement than AF known to exist before stroke occurrence (KAF). This favours a neurogenic AF substrate (autonomic dysregulation) in which the presence of underlying heart disease is not necessary for AF to occur. The main objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the prevalence of cardiovascular comorbidities and echocardiographic abnormalities in patients with AFDAS, KAF and no AF (NAF). Secondary objectives are to compare the proportion with insular cortex involvement, stroke recurrence and death in the three rhythm groups. Methods and analysis We will perform a systematic review including cross-sectional, case–control, cohort studies and clinical trials involving ≥18 years patients, with ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack published between inception and 31 December 2020 in any language, and reporting the proportion of patients with AFDAS, KAF and NAF. We will search PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus by applying predefined search terms. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts and retrieve full texts, extract data in a predesigned form, and assess the risk of bias. We will perform a meta-analysis of all included studies and we will report the results of the main outcome as proportions. We will report results of secondary outcomes as risk ORs. We will estimate heterogeneity across studies by using t 2 , Q and I 2 measures. We will use funnel plots, Rosenthal’s Fail-Safe N and Egger’s regression intercept to assess publication bias. Ethics and dissemination This study will be based on published data and does therefore not require ethical clearance. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020202622.

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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.030
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.003

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 head0.339
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→