MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212731663 · doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2021-320478

Heartbeat: lower risk of dementia with a direct oral anticoagulatant, compared to a vitamin K antagonist, for patients with atrial fibrillation

2021· editorial· en· W3212731663 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Catherine M Otto

Bibliographic record

VenueHeart · 2021
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDementiaVitamin K antagonistAtrial fibrillationInternal medicineBody mass indexMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCardiologyPediatricsWarfarinDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have a higher risk of dementia and mild cognitive impairment, in addition to a fivefold higher risk of stroke, compared with patients in normal sinus rhythm. Potential mechanisms of cognitive impairment or dementia related to AF include recurrent micro emboli versus cerebral hypoperfusion in association with increased oxidative stress, inflammation and disruption of the blood-brain barrier. Using linked electronic health records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in the UK, Cadogan and colleagues1 compared the incidence of dementia or mild cognitive impairment in 39 200 patients (median age 76 years, 45% women) with AF treated with either a vitamin-K antagonist (VKA) or a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC). Incident dementia was diagnosed in 3.2% with a 16% lower risk of dementia in patients treated with a DOAC versus VKA (adjusted HR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.73 to 0.98) . Mild cognitive impairment was diagnosed in 4.0% with a 26% lower risk in those treated with a DOAC versus VKA (adjusted HR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.65 to 0.84) (figure 1). For patients taking a VKA, greater time with anticoagulation in therapeutic range was associated with a lower risk of dementia. Figure 1 Association between oral anticoagulant use and incident dementia and mild cognitive impairment, defined using clinical codes. ∧Adjusted for age, calendar year, time-on-treatment and sex. *Adjusted for age, calendar year, time-on-treatment, sex, body mass index, smoking status, hazardous alcohol consumption, socioeconomic status (practice level Index of Multiple Deprivation), primary care consultation frequency, diabetes, hypertension, myocardial infarction, statins, heart failure, stroke, vascular disease, renal disease, liver disease, antiplatelet drugs, ACE/ARB inhibitors, beta-blockers, antiarrhythmics, digoxin, diuretics, antipsychotics, antidepressants and proton …

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeartSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207