MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409565630 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.124.043867

Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion and Its Role in Stroke Prevention

2025· review· en· W4409565630 on OpenAlexaff
David Seiffge, Maurizio Paciaroni, Elias Auer, Jacqueline Saw, Michelle C. Johansen, Alexander P. Benz

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research InstituteVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLeft atrial appendage occlusionAtrial fibrillationThrombusPercutaneousStroke (engine)CardiologyThromboembolic strokeInternal medicineWarfarin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atrial fibrillation is a frequent cardiac arrhythmia and is associated with an increased risk of cardioembolic stroke. The left atrial appendage is a finger-like extension originating from the main body of the left atrium and the main location of thrombus formation in patients with atrial fibrillation. Surgical or percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) aims at preventing clot formation in the left atrial appendage. Here, we describe available surgical and percutaneous approaches to achieve LAAO and discuss the available evidence for LAAO in patients with atrial fibrillation. We discuss LAAO and its role in stroke prevention in 2 frequent scenarios of cerebrovascular medicine: LAAO as a potential alternative to oral anticoagulation in patients with a history of intracranial hemorrhage or at high risk of intracranial bleeding, and LAAO as add-on therapy to direct oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with breakthrough stroke despite anticoagulation. Finally, we provide an outlook on currently ongoing trials that will provide further evidence in the next years.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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