MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407933653 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000213426

Risk of Recurrent Stroke, Mortality, and Intracerebral Hemorrhage in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Detected Before or After a Stroke

2025· review· en· W4407933653 on OpenAlexaff
Michele Romoli, Giacomo Urbinati, Valentina Tudisco, António Toscano, Paolo Eusebi, Fabrizio Giammello, Lucio D’Anna, Lina Palaiodimou, Aristeidis H. Katsanos, Francesco Diana, Simona Sacco, Shadi Yaghi, Andrea Zini, Marta Aurora Rubiera del Fueyo, Alan C. Cameron, Luciano A. Sposato, Maurizio Paciaroni, Georgios Tsivgoulis

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtrial fibrillationIntracerebral hemorrhageStroke (engine)MedicineCardiologyInternal medicineSubarachnoid hemorrhage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The risk of recurrent ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and mortality in people with atrial fibrillation detected after stroke (AFDAS) is still unclear compared with people with known atrial fibrillation (KAF). We systematically reviewed the literature to provide updated estimates for the risk of recurrent stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and mortality in AFDAS compared with KAF. METHODS: Our protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024583064). Presentation followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and MedRxiv up to August 28, 2024, for studies comparing AFDAS and KAF for the following outcomes of interest: recurrent ischemic stroke (primary), intracerebral hemorrhage, mortality, and any stroke recurrence. We included cohort, observational studies (either prospective or retrospective) and randomized controlled trials and excluded studies with less than 15 patients per group. Eligible studies were assessed for bias using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies tool. We pooled study-level results through random-effect meta-analysis of risk ratios (RRs). We also performed prespecified sensitivity analysis for study quality, timing of search for AF, propensity score matching, and study data source (administrative vs local data), and we planned meta-regression analysis to test for the interaction of sex, comorbid cardiovascular risk factors, and anticoagulation status on the difference between AFDAS and KAF. RESULTS: = 3) were similar in AFDAS and KAF. DISCUSSION: AFDAS may carry a lower risk of ischemic stroke recurrence and mortality compared with KAF, with similar risk of intracerebral hemorrhage. Stratification through implementation of AF burden measures may support more personalized management for people with AFDAS.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.013
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations11
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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