Idiopathic atrial fibrillation revisited in a large longitudinal clinical cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: An age of 60 years is often used as cut-off for the diagnosis of idiopathic atrial fibrillation (AF). We investigated the importance of age and atrial size in patients with idiopathic AF and AF patients with isolated hypertension. METHODS AND RESULTS: Out of 3978 AF patients in the Euro Heart Survey on AF with known follow-up, 119 (3%) patients had idiopathic AF. We disregarded age and atrial size when selecting idiopathic AF patients since the atria may enlarge by AF itself. For comparison, we selected 152 patients with isolated hypertension from the database. A total of 57 (48%) of the patients were older than 60 years. Persistent or permanent AF was more prevalent in the older idiopathic AF patients (34% in the age <60 vs. 66% in the age >60 years group, P= 0.002) but mean duration of known AF did not differ between these groups [310 days (inter-quartile range, IQR) 60-1827) vs. 430 days (IQR 88-1669), P= 0.824]. Left atrial size did not differ significantly in relation to age (1.50 ± 0.29 mm/kg/m² in the age <60 vs. 1.56 ± 0.31 mm/kg/m² in the age >60 years group, P= 0.742). Only two paroxysmal AF patients progressed to permanent AF. No cardiovascular events occurred during the 1-year follow-up. In contrast, strokes occurred in five patients (6%) with isolated hypertension despite similar clinical profile and comparable atrial size as idiopathic AF patients. CONCLUSION: Idiopathic AF may present at advanced age and is even then not associated with significant atrial enlargement, AF progression, or an adverse short-term prognosis. In contrast, elevated blood pressure even when found in the absence of significant atrial remodelling, seems of prognostic importance.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".