Prospective Assessment of Sex‐Related Differences in Symptom Status and Health Perception Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background We prospectively assessed sex‐specific differences in health perception, overall symptom status, and specific symptoms in a large cohort of patients with atrial fibrillation. Methods and Results We performed a prospective multicenter observational cohort study of 1553 patients with atrial fibrillation. Patients completed questionnaires about personal characteristics, comorbidities, and symptoms on a yearly basis. Mean age was 70±11 years among women and 67±12 years among men. Health perception on a visual analogue scale ranging from 0 to 100 (with higher scores indicating better health perception) was significantly lower in women than in men (70 [interquartile range: 50–80] versus 75 [interquartile range: 60–85]; P <0.0001). More women than men had any symptoms (85.0% versus 68.3%; P <0.0001), palpitations (65.2% versus 44.4%; P <0.0001), dizziness (25.6% versus 13.5%; P <0.0001), dyspnea (35.7% versus 21.8%; P <0.0001), and fatigue (25.3% versus 19.1%; P =0.006). At 1‐year follow‐up, symptoms decreased in both sexes but remained more frequent in women (49.1% versus 32.6%, P <0.0001). In multivariable adjusted longitudinal regression models, female sex remained an independent predictor for lower health perception (ß=−4.8; 95% CI, −6.5 to −3.1; P <0.0001), any symptoms (odds ratio [ OR ]: 2.6; 95% CI , 2.1–3.4; P <0.0001), palpitations ( OR : 2.6; 95% CI, 2.1–3.2; P <0.0001), dizziness ( OR : 2.9; 95% CI, 2.1–3.9; P <0.0001), dyspnea ( OR : 2.1; 95% CI, 1.6–2.8; P <0.0001), fatigue ( OR : 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2–2.2; P =0.0008), and chest pain ( OR : 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3–2.6; P =0.001). Conclusions Women with atrial fibrillation have a substantially higher symptom burden and lower health perception than men. These relationships persisted after multivariable adjustment and during prospective follow‐up.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".