Exploring Internal Medicine by a Comparative Schematic Analysis of the Long-Term Outcomes of Anticoagulation Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia with increased risks of stroke and other cardiovascular complications. This research examined the long-term outcomes of anticoagulation therapy in AF patients, focusing on its benefits for stroke reduction, bleeding hazards, and survival rates. Researchers conducted an extensive literature search that combined PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to retrieve publications from 2015 to 2025. The search focused on keywords related to anticoagulation therapy and its connection to atrial fibrillation, stroke prevention, as well as both long-term outcomes and bleeding risks. The data extraction process was performed by two independent reviewers, while the assessment of study quality relied on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The evaluation of evidence quality followed the GRADE approach. A total of 12 studies were included in this review after full screening. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) exhibited either matching or superior stroke prevention performance compared to warfarin while showing lower major bleeding occurrence according to existing research findings. Studies demonstrated that patients receiving DOACs had longer survival rates when examining death rates. The review demonstrated that anticoagulation medication shows strong clinical results as a treatment strategy for prolonged atrial fibrillation cases. Further research must expand with prolonged follow-up examinations to establish data on the safety and effectiveness of DOACs compared to warfarin and to create better guidelines for the long-term anticoagulation treatment of AF patients.
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 | 0.014 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".