Anticoagulation Therapy Timing in patients with Atrial Fibrillation after Acute and Chronic Subdural Haematoma (ATTAACH): a pilot randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Subdural haematomas (SDHs), acute or chronic, are common neurosurgical diagnoses. These problems can occur among patients requiring direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC) for atrial fibrillation. There are currently no guidelines regarding the optimal timing to resume anticoagulation for these patients after SDH. The objective of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of conducting a future large randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the safety and efficacy of resuming DOACs early (ie, at 30 days) vs late (ie, at 3 months) for patients with atrial fibrillation following diagnosis of SDH. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a pilot, open-label, multicentre RCT that will enrol adults with newly diagnosed acute or chronic SDH with or without other intracranial bleeding who were receiving therapeutic anticoagulation with a DOAC as stroke prophylaxis for atrial fibrillation. Patients will be randomly allocated to resume a DOAC at standard dosing starting either days 30+7 or days 90±14. The primary outcomes for the pilot RCT are recruitment rate, protocol adherence and patient compliance with the randomly allocated interventions. Secondary outcomes are patient functional outcomes and safety and effectiveness outcomes, which will comprise key endpoints for the future planned RCT. This pilot RCT will provide important data to inform the feasibility of conducting a future, large RCT of early versus late resumption of DOACs for atrial fibrillation stroke prophylaxis in patients newly diagnosed with SDH. The future RCT will help inform management of a commonly encountered clinical dilemma with high associated morbidity and mortality. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the research ethics board of record. It will be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, Good Clinical Practice guidelines and regulatory requirements. Informed consent will be obtained from eligible patients or substitute decision-makers. Data from this study will inform the design of future, larger RCTs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05472766.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".