Abstract 435: Timing of Anticoagulation Therapy After Ischemic Stroke: Comparative Outcomes in Early vs. Late Treatment Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The optimal timing for initiating anticoagulation therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) after an ischemic stroke remains a topic of ongoing debate. This study aims to compare the cognitive and functional outcomes of early versus late initiation of anticoagulation therapy in stroke patients with AF, providing insights into the potential benefits of timely intervention. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of 300 ischemic stroke patients with confirmed AF who received anticoagulation therapy. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the timing of therapy initiation: the early treatment group, where anticoagulation was started within 24 hours post‐stroke, and the late treatment group, where therapy was initiated beyond 24 hours. Cognitive recovery was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) six months post‐stroke, and functional outcomes were evaluated using the Activities of Daily Living (ADL) scale. Results The analysis revealed that patients who received early anticoagulation therapy demonstrated significantly better cognitive outcomes compared to those in the late treatment group. Specifically, MoCA scores were higher in the early group (24.5 ± 3.5 vs. 21.8 ± 4.0, p < 0.01), indicating enhanced cognitive recovery. Additionally, functional assessments showed that patients in the early treatment group had superior ADL scores, reflecting better functional independence six months post‐stroke. Conclusion Our findings suggest that early initiation of anticoagulation therapy in stroke patients with AF is associated with more favorable cognitive and functional outcomes compared to delayed treatment. The results underscore the importance of timely intervention in improving recovery trajectories for stroke patients at risk of AF‐related complications. These insights highlight the potential benefits of early anticoagulation in enhancing post‐stroke recovery, offering a compelling argument for revisiting current clinical guidelines on the timing of anticoagulation therapy 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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, 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".