Standardized Prevalence Ratios for Atrial Fibrillation in Adult Dialysis Patients in Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While it is assumed that dialysis patients in Japan have a higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) than the general population, the magnitude of this difference is not known. METHODS: Standardized prevalence ratios (SPRs) for AF in dialysis patients (n = 1510) were calculated compared to data from the general population (n = 26 454) living in the same area. RESULTS: The prevalences of AF were 3.8% and 1.6% in dialysis patients and the general population, respectively. In male subjects, these respective values were 4.9% and 3.3%, and in female subjects they were 1.6% and 0.6%. The SPRs for AF were 2.53 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.88-3.19) in all dialysis patients, 1.80 (95% CI, 1.30-2.29) in male dialysis patients, and 2.13 (95% CI, 0.66-3.61) in female dialysis patients. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of AF in dialysis patients was twice that in the population-based controls. Since AF strongly contributes to a higher risk of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in the general population, further longitudinal studies should be conducted regarding the risk of several outcomes attributable to AF among Japanese dialysis patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".