MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4281812783 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2022.66

Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source: Role of Implantable Loop Recorder in Secondary Prevention

2022· article· en· W4281812783 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andrea Gambino, Emanuele Ravetti, Andrea Naldi, Riccardo Russo, Stefano Molinaro, Francesco Mistretta, Marcella Jorfida, Davide Castagno, Gaetano Maria De Ferrari, Paolo Cerrato, Giovanni Bosco, Federico D’Agata, Alessandro Cicerale, Mauro Bergui

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationStroke (engine)Internal medicineCardiologyUnivariate analysisMultivariate analysisBleedImplantable loop recorderStatistical significanceSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most important cause of embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). Implantable loop recorder (ILR) demonstrated the highest sensitivity for detecting it. This register was created to confirm the high prevalence of AF in patients after ESUS and to verify possible benefits on clinical outcomes such as TIA (Transient Ischaemic Attack)/stroke recurrence and death using ILR. METHODS: A total of 278 patients admitted to "Molinette" Hospital in Stroke Unit department between 2011 and 2016, diagnosed with ESUS, underwent ILR implantation if they had at least one risk factor for AF. A total of 165 patients admitted to other departments in the same center for the same pathology, without ILR, represent the control group. We used propensity score to select 132 patients from each group (matching age, sex, CHADS-VASC, and HAS-BLEED baseline characteristics). RESULTS: The detection rate of AF episodes was significantly higher in the ILR group (p < 0.001). No significant protective role of ILR for clinical endpoints was found on univariate analysis, although a trend towards significance has been pointed for the composite outcome of death and ischemic events recurrence (OR 0.52, CI 0.26-1.04, p = 0.06). A protective role of ILR was found for deaths (OR 0.4, CI 0.17-0.94, p 0.03) and for the composite outcome (OR 0.41, CI 0.19-0.87, p 0.02) on multivariate analysis in the best subsets. CONCLUSION: With our statistical models, we identified a significant clinical benefit from ILR monitoring, evidenced by a trend of less death and TIA/stroke recurrence and relevant ILR protection for prediction of TIA/stroke recurrence.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→