MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390098850 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.123.040447

Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: Our Current Failures and Required Research

2023· review· en· W4390098850 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Edip Gurol, Clinton B. Wright, Scott Janis, Eric E. Smith, Elif Gökçal, Vivek Y. Reddy, José G. Merino, Jonathan C. Hsu

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAvid RadiopharmaceuticalsNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokePfizer CanadaAustralian GovernmentBoston Scientific CorporationNational Institutes of HealthPfizer
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationStroke (engine)CardiologyRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineWarfarinIntensive care medicineEmbolismRisk factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation is a common rhythm disorder of middle-aged to older adults that can cause ischemic strokes and systemic embolism. Lifelong use of oral anticoagulants reduces the risk of these ischemic events but increases the risk of major and clinically relevant hemorrhages. These medications also require strict compliance for efficacy, and they have nontrivial failure rates in higher-risk patients. Left atrial appendage closure is a nonpharmacological method to prevent ischemic strokes in atrial fibrillation without the need for lifelong anticoagulant use, but this procedure has the potential for complications and residual embolic events. This workshop of the Roundtable of Academia and Industry for Stroke Prevention discussed future research needed to further decrease the ischemic and hemorrhagic risks among patients with atrial fibrillation. A direct thrombin inhibitor, factor Xa inhibitors, and left atrial appendage closure are FDA-approved approaches whereas factor XIa inhibitors are currently being studied in phase 3 randomized controlled trials for stroke prevention. The benefits, risks, and shortcomings of these treatments and future research required in different high-risk patient populations are reviewed in this consensus statement.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.389
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.134 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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