ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2026
The COOL-AF 3-year prediction models for death, ischemic stroke, and major bleeding: a report from the COOL-AF registry.
Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Personalised Antithrombotic Strategies in Diverse Clinical Populations.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are at increased risk of death, ischemic stroke/systemic embolism (SSE), and major bleeding. Most existing risk models focus on short-term outcomes and are derived mainly from Western populations. We aimed to develop and validate 3-year prediction models for these outcomes in an Asian AF cohort and to compare their performance with established risk scores. We analyzed the 3-year data from the prospective, nationwide COOL-AF registry, enrolling patients with non-valvular AF from 27 hospitals in Thailand. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to derive prediction models for death, SSE, and major bleeding. Model performance was assessed using discrimination (C-statistics), calibration, and reclassification metrics, and compared with GARFIELD, CHA₂DS₂-VASc, and HAS-BLED models. Among 3,405 patients, 380 deaths, 134 SSE events, and 199 major bleeding events occurred over a median follow-up of 35.9 months. The 3-year COOL-AF models showed good discrimination, with C-statistics of 0.728 (0.712-0.743) for death, 0.703 (0.687-0.718) for SSE, and 0.700 (0.685-0.716) for major bleeding, and demonstrated good calibration. Compared with existing scores, the COOL-AF models performed better than CHA₂DS₂-VASc for death and better than HAS-BLED for major bleeding, while showing comparable or superior performance to the GARFIELD models, particularly for bleeding risk. Reclassification indices further supported the incremental value of the COOL-AF models. In conclusion, the 3-year COOL-AF prediction models provide an acceptable levels of prediction, well-calibrated estimates of death, SSE, and major bleeding in Asian patients with AF and outperform commonly used clinical risk scores, supporting their use for long-term risk stratification and clinical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42218359What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.