Atrial fibrillation and ischemic heart disease: (un)solved therapeutic dilemma?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concomitant presence of atrial fibrillation and coronary artery disease requiring percutaneous coronary intervention is a frequent occurrence. The choice of optimal antithrombotic therapy, in this context, is still challenging. To offer the best protection both in terms of stroke and stent thrombosis, triple therapy with oral anticoagulation and dual antiplatelet therapy would be required. Several drug combinations have been tested in recent years, including direct oral anticoagulants, with the aim of balancing ischemic and bleeding risk. Both pharmacokinetic aspects of the molecules and patient's characteristics should be analyzed in choosing oral anticoagulation. Then, as suggested by guidelines, triple therapy should start with a seven-day duration and the aim to prolong to thirty days in high thrombotic risk patients. Dual therapy should follow to reach twelve months after coronary intervention. Even not fully discussed by the guidelines, in order to balance ischemic and bleeding risk it should also be considered: 1) integrated assessment of coronary artery disease and procedural complexity of coronary intervention; 2) appropriateness to maintain the anticoagulant drug dosage indicated in technical data sheet; the lack of data on the suspension of antiplatelet drugs one year after percutaneous intervention; 3) the possibility of combination therapy with ticagrelor; and 4) the need to treat the occurrence of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation during acute coronary syndrome. With data provided clinician should pursue a therapy as personalized as possible, both in terms of drug choice and treatment duration, in order to balance ischemic and bleeding risk.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".