New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although sex differences in coronary artery disease have received considerable attention, few studies have dealt with sex differences in the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia, atrial fibrillation (AF). Differences in presentation and clinical course may dictate different approaches to detection and management. We sought to examine sex-related differences in presentation, treatment, and outcome in patients presenting with new-onset AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Canadian Registry of Atrial Fibrillation (CARAF) enrolled subjects at the time of first ECG-confirmed diagnosis of AF. Participants were followed at 3 months, at 1 year, and annually thereafter. Treatment was at the discretion of the patients' physicians and was not directed by CARAF investigators. Baseline and follow-up data collection included a detailed medical history, clinical, ECG, and echocardiographic measures, medication history, and therapeutic interventions. Three hundred thirty-nine women and 560 men were followed for 4.14+/-1.39 years. Compared with men, women were older at the time of presentation, more likely to seek medical advice because of symptoms, and experienced significantly higher heart rates during AF. Compared with older men, older women were half as likely to receive warfarin and twice as likely to receive acetylsalicylic acid. Compared with men on warfarin, women on warfarin were 3.35 times more likely to experience a major bleed. CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulants are underused in older women with AF relative to older men with AF, despite comparable risk profiles. Women receiving warfarin have a significantly higher risk of major bleeding, suggesting the need for careful monitoring of anticoagulant intensity in women.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".