Atrial fibrillation screening and clinical outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recommendations on atrial fibrillation (AF) screening by various scientific societies are inconsistent due to uncertainty about its benefit. This study aimed to summarize data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the impact of AF screening on thromboembolism, major bleeding, and mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase to identify studies providing relevant data through 5 September 2024. Risk ratios (RRs) for each reported outcome of interest were pooled through a meta-analysis with random effects models. We included six RCTs reporting data from 74 145 individuals. AF screening was associated with higher AF detection compared with no intervention [RR 2.54, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.57-4.11, P < 0.001], and more common initiation of oral anticoagulation (RR 2.19, 1.51-3.18, P < 0.001). Incident ischaemic stroke (RR 0.93, 0.87-1.00, P = 0.048) and thromboembolism including ischaemic stroke, transient ischaemic attack, or systemic embolism (0.93, 95% CI: 0.87-0.99, P = 0.026) were less frequent in individuals who underwent AF screening vs. controls. There was no difference for major bleeding, (RR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.93-1.06, P = 0.830), haemorrhagic stroke (RR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.80-1.11, P = 0.497) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.95-1.02, P = 0.411). CONCLUSION: AF screening might be beneficial, especially in reducing thromboembolic events.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | MetaresearchMeta-epidemiology (broad) Domain: Methods · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | high |
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 | 0.044 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.028 | 0.060 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".