MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4210527990 · doi:10.1161/str.53.suppl_1.wp179

Abstract WP179: Impact Of Different Cardiac Rhythm Monitoring Strategies On Secondary Stroke Prevention: A Systematic Review And Network Meta-analysis Of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials

2022· review· en· W4210527990 on OpenAlexaff
Aristeidis H. Katsanos, Sokratis Triantafyllou, Lina Palaiodimou, Brian Mac Grory, Spyridon Deftereos, Martin Köhrmann, Polychronis Dilaveris, Brittany Ricci, Konstantinos Tsioufis, Shawna M Cutting, Gkikas Magiorkinis, Christos Krogias, Peter D. Schellinger, Efthimios Dardiotis, Ana Rodríguez-Campello, Elisa Cuadrado‐Godia, Diana Aguiar de Sousa, Mukul A Sharma, David J. Gladstone, Tommaso Sanna, Rolf Wachter, Karen L. Furie, Andrei V. Alexandrov, Shadi Yaghi, Georgios Tsivgoulis

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationRandomized controlled trialImplantable loop recorderStroke (engine)Relative riskMeta-analysisInternal medicineCardiologyConfidence intervalHolter monitorElectrocardiography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Purpose: Prolonged cardiac rhythm monitoring can reveal a substantial proportion of ischemic stroke (IS) patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We sought to evaluate the potential utility of available prolonged cardiac rhythm monitoring strategies with respect to secondary stroke prevention. Methods: We searched Medline and Scopus databases to identify randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing AF detection, anticoagulation initiation and stroke recurrence rates in patients with history of recent IS or transient ischemic attack (TIA) receiving cardiac rhythm monitoring with implantable loop recorders (ILRs), 30-days external loop recorders or Holter monitors. We performed a network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence for any given pair of monitoring devices that were evaluated within a trial and reported effect estimates with risk ratios (RRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs). Results: We identified 5 RCTs including a total of 2202 patients (mean age 68 years, 40% women). In indirect analyses the likelihood of AF detection and anticoagulation initiation was higher for both ILR (RR=8.48, 95%CI: 3.41, 21.06; RR=3.29, 95%CI: 1.70-6.39) and external loop recorders (RR=3.06, 95%CI: 1.66, 5.61; RR=1.63, 95%CI: 1.03-2.58) compared to Holter devices. The probability of AF detection and anticoagulation initiation was lower for Holter and external loop recorders compared to ILR devices (RR=0.36, 95%CI: 0.15, 0.85 and RR=0.50, 95%CI: 0.25-0.98, respectively). No difference in the risk of stroke recurrence was found in the indirect comparisons of different cardiac rhythm monitoring strategies. Conclusion: The likelihood of AF detection and anticoagulation initiation after an ischemic stroke or TIA is higher with ILRs compared to both external loop recorders and Holter devices.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.041
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→