ArticleJAMIA open2026
A preliminary evaluation of AFibrisk: digital decision-support platform for atrial fibrillation risk assessment after cryptogenic stroke-a cross-sectional concordance study.
Article in JAMIA open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Identifying patients at high risk for atrial fibrillation (AF) after cryptogenic stroke remains a challenge, particularly in settings with limited access to long-term cardiac monitoring. The AFibrisk platform, a free digital decision-support tool, integrates 19 validated AF prediction scores to support post-stroke triage. We aimed to assess the concordance of AFibrisk-supported classification decisions with expert electrophysiologist consensus and compare performance across evaluator groups with different levels of clinical experience. Materials and Methods: A prospective, cross-sectional concordance study was conducted using 29 standardized clinical vignettes. Evaluators-3 vascular neurologists, 4 cardiology residents, and 11 neurology residents-classified each case as high or low AF risk using AFibrisk outputs. Expert consensus served as the reference standard. Statistical analyses included inter-group comparisons, inter-rater reliability, and regression models adjusting for group size and response clustering. Results: Vascular neurologists demonstrated the highest agreement with the reference standard (mean 90.3%), followed by cardiology residents (85.2%) and neurology residents (77.5%). Differences were statistically significant (ANOVA Discussion and Conclusion: AFibrisk improved alignment with expert judgment across evaluator groups and helped standardize decision-making. Our free platform may support AF risk stratification in low-resource environments and reinforce evidence-based heuristics among early-career clinicians, and it is available at www.afibrisk.net.
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.