MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413443774 · doi:10.1161/jaha.125.042147

Apixaban Versus Aspirin to Reduce Cognitive Decline After Cryptogenic Stroke and Atrial Cardiopathy: ARCADIA‐Cognition Study

2025· article· en· W4413443774 on OpenAlexaff
Ronald M. Lazar, George Howard, Michael Brewer, Christy Cassarly, Qi Pauls, Stephanie Kemp, David Tirschwell, Kevin N. Sheth, Max Wintermark, Hooman Kamel, W. T. Longstreth, Mitchell S.V. Elkind, Joseph P. Broderick, Maarten G. Lansberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
FundersNational Institutes of HealthArcadia FundNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNovo NordiskMedical University of South CarolinaEvelyn F. McKnight Brain Research FoundationPfizerMcKnight FoundationEli Lilly and CompanyAstraZenecaBrain Research FoundationAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsMedicineAspirinArcadiaCognitive declineApixabanStroke (engine)CognitionCardiologyInternal medicineAtrial fibrillationDementiaIntensive care medicineWarfarinRivaroxabanPsychiatryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background ARCADIA (Atrial Cardiopathy and Antithrombotic Drugs in Prevention After Cryptogenic Stroke), a secondary stroke prevention study comparing apixaban versus aspirin for cryptogenic stroke and biomarkers of atrial cardiopathy, ended prematurely for futility. In the ARCADIA‐Cognition study we hypothesized that cognitive decline would be slower in the apixaban arm due to less microembolization. Methods ARCADIA subjects on study drug and eligible for magnetic resonance imaging participated in ARCADIA‐CSI (ARCADIA‐Cognition and Silent Infarction). Cognitive tests were administered centrally by telephone ≥3 months after the ARCADIA index stroke and yearly thereafter. Composite Z scores were the means of 5 standardized cognitive tests. Trajectories of the composite Z score and the individual test scores were compared between treatment arms using a mixed‐effects model. Results Of 799 screened patients at 75 sites, 310 were enrolled in ARCADIA‐CSI. Of these, 296 completed at least 1 cognitive exam, and 47 subjects were excluded from the primary analysis for baseline dementia. For the 249 subjects included in the analysis, there were 582 cognitive assessments. Baseline characteristics were balanced between the apixaban (n=128) and aspirin (n=121) arms. Mean age was 68 (SD: 10.4) years, median modified Rankin Scale score 1 (interquartile range, 0–2), 52% female, and 19% Black. During median follow‐up of 378 (interquartile range, 183–735) days, the annual change in the overall standardized composite score was 0.084 (95% CI, 0.017–0.149) in the aspirin arm and 0.107 (95% CI, 0.041–0.174) in the apixaban arm ( P =0.62). Conclusions Cognitive trajectories did not differ between apixaban and aspirin. Further studies should address infarct location and volume and concurrent pathology to determine optimal treatment to mitigate cognitive decline with atrial disease. Registration URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique Identifier: NCT03192215.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.360
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 designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart Association→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→