Impaired quality of life in patients with intermittent atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The quality of life (QoL) is impaired in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, the data on the perceived QoL of patients with different types of AF is limited. In this study, we investigated the QoL of patients with intermittent and chronic AF. METHODS: The study was designed as an observational cross-sectional study, and 135 consecutive patients with documented AF admitted to the cardiology outpatient clinic in a tertiary hospital were recruited. The pattern of AF was classified as intermittent or chronic AF. The European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) classification and symptom severity score were used to quantify the symptoms related to AF. The QoL was assessed by the Short Form-36 and the Canadian Cardiovascular Society Severity in Atrial Fibrillation (SAF) scale. RESULTS: Thirty-nine percent of the patients (n=52) had intermittent AF and 61% (n=83) had chronic AF. In the overall patient population, 92% reported having at least one of the symptoms that can be attributable to AF. Although the prevalence of symptoms were similar in patients with intermittent or chronic AF, the patients with intermittent AF perceived more severe palpitations (symptom severity score 2.4±1.7 vs. 1.5±1.5, p=0.003). Patients with intermittent AF had higher EHRA and SAF scores than the patients with chronic AF (2.6±0.9 vs. 1.9±0.8, p<0.001; 2.5±1.3 vs. 1.7±1.2, p<0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Outpatients with AF have a high prevalence of symptoms and impaired QoL. The impairment of subjective health-related QoL is worse in patients with intermittent AF.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".