MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163826963 · doi:10.1161/circep.113.000147

Regular Physical Activity and Risk of Atrial Fibrillation

2013· review· en· W2163826963 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Effects of Exercise
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtrial fibrillationMedicineOdds ratioConfidence intervalInternal medicineIncidence (geometry)Meta-analysisPopulationMEDLINECardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although previous studies have suggested that competitive athletes have a higher risk of atrial fibrillation than the general population, limited and inconsistent data are available on the association between regular physical activity and the risk of atrial fibrillation. METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic, comprehensive literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and COCHRANE until 2011. Extracted data from the eligible studies were meta-analyzed using fixed effects model. Four studies, which included 95 526 subjects, were eligible for meta-analysis. For all of the studies included, the extreme groups (ie, maximum versus minimal amount of physical activity) were used for the current analyses. The total number of participants belonging to the extreme groups was 43 672. The pooled odds ratio (95% confidence interval) for atrial fibrillation among regular exercisers was 1.08 (0.97-1.21). CONCLUSIONS: Our data do not support a statistically significant association between regular physical activity and increased incidence of atrial fibrillation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.276 · 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