MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994758286 · doi:10.1159/000091642

Potential Clinical Correlates and Risk Factors for Interatrial Block

2006· article· en· W1994758286 on OpenAlexaff
Vignendra Ariyarajah, Sirin Apiyasawat, Ranjani N. Moorthi, David H. Spodick

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSaint-Vincent Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineOdds ratioCardiologyConfidence intervalCoronary artery diseaseSinus rhythmAtrial fibrillationDiabetes mellitusLeft atrial enlargementEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Interatrial block (IAB; P wave > or =110 ms) denotes a conduction delay between the atria, is strongly associated with atrial tachyarrhythmias, left atrial enlargement, left atrial electromechanical dysfunction, and is a risk for embolism. Despite this, potential risk factors for IAB have not been clearly defined. METHODS: Patients admitted via the Emergency Department for nonacute medical reasons to the nontelemetry general medical floors of a tertiary care general hospital from October to November 2004 were screened for sinus rhythm on electrocardiograms. Four hundred and four patients who met our criteria were then evaluated for IAB on respective electrocardiograms. All patients were subsequently compared for common diseases as well as coronary artery disease (CAD) risk factors and divided into two groups, those with IAB and those without (control). Mean age +/- standard deviation, odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), r values, and p values were calculated. p values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: From the sample (n = 404), 182 patients had IAB (45%; mean age 64.32 +/- 19.27 years; males 51.6%) while 222 did not (control). CAD (OR 3.150, 95% CI 2.05-4.83; p < 0.001, r = 0.3), hypertension (OR 2.918, 95% CI 1.85-4.60; p < 0.001, r = 0.2), diabetes mellitus (OR 2.542, 95% CI 1.62-3.97; p < 0.001, r = 0.1), and hypercholesterolemia (OR 1.823, 95% CI 1.22-2.74; p = 0.004, r = 0.2) were significant risk factors and correlates for IAB. Multivariate analysis using stepwise linear regression revealed these factors as direct correlates of IAB. CONCLUSION: CAD, hypertension, diabetes mellitus and hypercholesterolemia appear to be risk factors for IAB in general hospital patients admitted for nonacute reasons. Considering the known sequelae of IAB, awareness of its associations with such risk factors could be important for patient risk stratification.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations31
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiologySame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207