MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282011550 · doi:10.1002/agm2.12214

Frailty and oral anticoagulant prescription in adults with atrial fibrillation: A systematic review

2022· review· en· W4282011550 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAging Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Health and Medical Research CouncilNational Heart Foundation of Australia
KeywordsAtrial fibrillationMedical prescriptionOral anticoagulantMedicineAnticoagulantCardiologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicineWarfarinPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives The objectives of this study were to determine the prevalence of frailty in the context of atrial fibrillation (AF); to identify the most commonly used frailty instruments in AF; and to describe the effect of frailty on non‐vitamin K oral anticoagulant (NOAC) prescription for stroke prevention in adults with AF. Methods A systematic search of databases, including Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and CINAHL, was conducted using search terms including “atrial fibrillation,” “frailty,” and “anticoagulation.” A narrative synthesis was undertaken. Results A total of 92 articles were screened, and 12 articles were included. The mean age of the participants ( n = 212,111) was 82 years (range = 77–85 years) with 56% of participants identified as frail and 44% identified non‐frail. A total of five different frailty instruments were identified: the Frailty Phenotype (FP; n = 5, 42%), the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS; n = 4, 33%), Cumulative Deficit Model of Frailty (CDM; n = 1, 8%), Edmonton Frail Scale ( n = 1, 8%) and the Resident Assessment Instrument – Minimum Data Set (RAI‐MDS 2.0; n = 1, 8%). Frailty was identified as an important barrier to anticoagulant therapy with 52% of the frail population anticoagulated vs 67% non‐frail. Conclusion Frailty is an important consideration in anticoagulation decision making for stroke prevention in patients with AF. There is scope to improve frailty screening and treatment. Frailty status is an important risk marker and should be considered when evaluating stroke risk alongside congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, prior stroke, transient ischemic attack, or thromboembolism, vascular disease, age 65–74 years, sex category (CHA 2 DS 2 ‐VASc) and Hypertension, Abnormal renal/liver function, Stroke, Bleeding, Labile, Elderly, and Drugs (HAS‐BLED) scores.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.412
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.046 · 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