Outcomes of patients with atrial fibrillation and ischemic stroke while on oral anticoagulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The prognosis of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and ischemic stroke while taking oral anticoagulation is poorly understood. This study aimed to characterize the outcomes of patients following a stroke event while on oral anticoagulation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Individual participant data from five pivotal randomized trials of antithrombotic therapy in AF were used to assess the outcomes of patients with a post-randomization ischemic stroke while on study medication (warfarin, standard-, or lower-dose direct oral anticoagulant regimen) during trial follow-up. The primary outcome was recurrent ischemic stroke after the first post-randomization ischemic stroke. The primary analysis included 1163 patients with a first post-randomization ischemic stroke while on study medication (median age 73 years, 39.3% female, 35.4% history of stroke before trial enrollment). During a median continued follow-up of 337 days, 74 patients had a recurrent ischemic stroke [cumulative incidence at 1 year: 7.0%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.2%-8.7%]. The cumulative incidence of mortality at 3 months after stroke was 12.4% (95% CI 10.5%-14.4%). Consistent results for the incidence of recurrent ischemic stroke at 1 year were obtained in an analysis accounting for the competing risk of death (6.2%, 95% CI 4.8%-7.9%) and in a landmark analysis excluding the first 2 weeks after the index stroke and only including patients without permanent study drug discontinuation since then (6.8%, 95% CI 4.6%-8.9%). CONCLUSION: Patients with AF and ischemic stroke while on oral anticoagulation are at increased risk of recurrent ischemic stroke and death. These patients currently have an unmet medical need.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".