ArticleCerebrovascular diseases extra2026
Predicting Incident Atrial Fibrillation after Stroke: A Scoping Review of Clinical Scores, Biomarkers, and AI-Enhanced Strategies.
Article in Cerebrovascular diseases extra, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Brain Frailty Rather than Age Alone Mediates the Lack of Benefit for Endovascular Thrombectomy in the Elderly Population of the RESILIENT Trial.Annals of neurology · 2026Trial
- Long-Term Cardiac Rhythm Monitoring After Ischemic Stroke: Detecting Atrial Fibrillation in the Era of Atrial Cardiopathy.Missouri medicineReview
- Modified small vessel disease score as the top predictor of stroke outcome after thrombectomy: a CT-based machine learning study.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncident atrial fibrillation (AF) after ischemic stroke is frequently underdetected despite its implications for anticoagulation and prevention of recurrent events. Multiple strategies - clinical risk scores, serum biomarkers, imaging markers, digital electrocardiographic (ECG) monitoring, and artificial intelligence (AI)-based models - have been proposed to predict or detect post-stroke AF, but their comparative performance and applicability in routine practice remain uncertain. SUMMARY: We conducted a scoping review following PRISMA-ScR guidelines to map evidence on tools for predicting or detecting post-stroke AF in adults without known AF at baseline. We synthesized studies on clinical prediction scores, circulating biomarkers, imaging-derived markers, digital monitoring technologies, and AI-enhanced predictive models. Natriuretic peptides, particularly NT-proBNP and mid-regional pro-atrial natriuretic peptide, demonstrate the most consistent association with incident AF and may improve risk stratification. Imaging markers such as left atrial dimensions and radiomic features show potential but lack robust validation. Digital monitoring modalities - including handheld ECG devices, wearable patch monitors, smartwatches, and implantable loop recorders - differ substantially in diagnostic yield, cost, and feasibility across settings. AI-based approaches using electronic health record data or ECG signals achieve high discrimination in development cohorts but require prospective clinical evaluation. Based on the evidence landscape, we outline a tiered diagnostic pathway integrating clinical scores, biomarker-guided triage, and stepwise ECG monitoring adapted to resource availability. KEY MESSAGES: Optimal post-stroke AF detection requires a multimodal strategy rather than isolated tools. Natriuretic peptides are the most validated biomarkers. Digital and AI-driven tools may broaden detection capacity but need external validation. A tiered diagnostic pathway may optimize diagnostic yield and resource allocation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.