Geographical variation in persistence to oral anticoagulation therapy and clinical outcomes among patients with atrial fibrillation initiating therapy in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To examine inter-national and regional variations in persistence of oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy and incidence of clinical outcomes and mortality, among patients with incident atrial fibrillation (AF) in the Nordic countries. METHODS: We conducted a registry-based multinational cohort study of OAC-naïve patients diagnosed with AF that redeemed at least one prescription of OAC after AF in Denmark (N = 25 585), Sweden (N = 59 455), Norway (N = 40 046) and Finland (N = 22 415). Persistence was dispensing at least one prescription of OAC from Day 365 after the first prescription and 90 days forward. RESULTS: Persistence was 73.6% (95% confidence interval 73.0-74.1) in Denmark, 71.1% (70.7-71.4) in Sweden, 89.3% (88.2-90.1) in Norway and 68.6% (68.0-69.3) in Finland. One-year risk of ischemic stroke varied between 2.0% (1.8-2.1) in Norway and 1.5% (1.4-1.6) in Sweden and 1.5% (1.3-1.6) in Finland. One-year risk of major bleeding other than intracranial bleeding varied between 2.1% (1.9-2.2) in Norway and 5.9% (5.6-6.2) in Denmark. One-year mortality risk varied between 9.3% (8.9-9.6) in Denmark and 4.2% (4.0-4.4) in Norway. CONCLUSION: In OAC-naïve patients with incident AF, persistence of OAC therapy and clinical outcomes vary across Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland. Initiation of real-time efforts are warranted to ensure uniform high-quality care across nations and regions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".