MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313312389 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000206748

Oral Anticoagulants and the Risk of Dementia in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

2022· article· en· W4313312389 on OpenAlexafffund
Alvi Rahman, Jonathan Michaud, Sophie Dell’Aniello, Erica E. M. Moodie, James M. Brophy, Madéleine Durand, Jason R. Guertin, Jean‐François Boivin, Christel Renoux

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsJewish General Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcGill UniversityHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsAtrial fibrillationDementiaMedicineCardiologyStroke (engine)Internal medicineIntensive care medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is associated with an increased risk of dementia. Oral anticoagulants (OACs) are essential for stroke prevention in NVAF, and studies have shown a possible protective effect on dementia. However, findings have been inconsistent and hampered by methodological limitations. Thus, we assessed whether the use of OACs is associated with a decreased incidence of dementia in patients with NVAF. In addition, we explored the impact of the cumulative duration of OAC use on the incidence of dementia. METHODS: Using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, we formed a cohort of all patients aged 50 years or older with an incident diagnosis of NVAF between 1988 and 2017 and no prior OAC use, with a follow-up until 2019. Patients were considered unexposed until 6 months after their first OAC prescription for latency considerations and exposed thereafter until the end of follow-up. We used time-dependent Cox regression models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs), adjusted for 54 covariates, with 95% CIs for dementia associated with OAC use, compared with nonuse. We also assessed whether the risk varied with the cumulative duration of OAC use, compared with nonuse, by comparing prespecified exposure categories defined in a time-varying manner and by modeling the HR using a restricted cubic spline. RESULTS: The cohort included 142,227 patients with NVAF, with 8,023 cases of dementia over 662,667 person-years of follow-up (incidence rate 12.1, 95% CI 11.9-12.4 per 1,000 person-years). OAC use was associated with a decreased risk of dementia (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.84-0.92) compared with nonuse. A restricted cubic spline also indicated a decreased risk of dementia, reaching a low at approximately 1.5 years of cumulative OAC use and stabilizing thereafter. Moreover, OAC use decreased the risk in patients aged 75 years and older (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.80-0.89), but not in younger patients (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90-1.10). DISCUSSION: In patients with incident NVAF, OACs were associated with a decreased risk of dementia, particularly in elderly individuals. This warrants consideration when weighing the risks and benefits of anticoagulation in this population. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that in patients with NVAF, OAC use (vs nonuse) is associated with a decreased risk of dementia.

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)0.005
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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