MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388862508 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.123.043665

Atrial Fibrillation Detection and Load: Knowledge Gaps Related to Stroke Prevention

2023· article· en· W4388862508 on OpenAlexaff
Eric E. Smith, Shadi Yaghi, Luciano A. Sposato, Marc Fisher, Joseph P. Broderick, Alvin S. Das, Mitchell S.V. Elkind, Larry B. Goldstein, M. Edip Gurol, Hooman Kamel, John R. Morgan, Bruce Ovbiagele, Sean I. Savitz, Magdy Selim, Manish Wadhwa

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationStroke (engine)CardiologySubclinical infectionInternal medicinePopulationRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atrial fibrillation is a major cause of ischemic stroke. Technological advances now support prolonged cardiac rhythm monitoring using either surface electrodes or insertable cardiac monitors. Four major randomized controlled trials show that prolonged cardiac monitoring detects subclinical paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in 9% to 16% of patients with ischemic stroke, including in patients with potential alternative causes such as large artery disease or small vessel occlusion; however, the optimal monitoring strategy, including the target patient population and the monitoring device (whether to use an event monitor, insertable cardiac monitor, or stepped approach) has not been well defined. Furthermore, the clinical significance of very short duration paroxysmal atrial fibrillation remains controversial. The relevance of the duration of monitoring, burden of device-detected atrial fibrillation, and its proximity to the acute ischemic stroke will require more research to define the most effective methods for stroke prevention in this patient population.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.104
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.104
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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