P4602Similar clinical outcomes of asymptomatic and symptomatic patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation: results from GARFIELD-AF
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the characteristics, treatment and outcomes of asymptomatic vs symptomatic patients with newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Methods: 39,898 adults (≥18 yrs) with NVAF diagnosed in the past 6 wks and ≥1 investigator-defined stroke risk factor were enrolled in the prospective GARFIELD-AF registry from 35 countries from Mar 2010–Sep 2015. At enrolment 28,843/78.0% patients presented with symptoms (palpitations, shortness of breath, chest pain/discomfort, dizziness, tiredness, sweating, fainting, other), 8125/22.0% did not (data missing in 2930). We analysed baseline characteristics, antithrombotic therapy and 1-yr incidence of outcomes. Results: The asymptomatic group included more men (65.3% vs 52.7%), and had a higher mean age (71.8 vs 69.0 yrs) and lower prevalence of congestive heart failure (CHF, 11.7% vs 23.2%), including NYHA Class III–IV CHF (17.1% vs 34.9%) vs the symptomatic group. The two groups had similar mean CHA2DS2-VASc (both 3.2 [SD 1.6]) and HAS-BLED (1.5 [0.9], 1.4 [0.9]). Fewer asymptomatic patients were diagnosed in a hospital (52.6% vs 60.7%) or emergency room (4.3% vs 13.6%) and more in an office (42.2% vs 25.0%). Use of antithrombotic therapies was similar in both groups (Tab). Unadjusted and adjusted HRs showed no difference in the rate of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) or of major bleeding in the two groups. Unadjusted HRs showed slightly lower all-cause mortality (0.87 [95% CI 0.77; 0.99]) in asymptomatic patients, although this difference was not present after adjustment for baseline characteristics. The annual incidence rates of stroke/SE and all-cause mortality were 1.40 and 3.81 per 100 person-yrs in asymptomatic patients, despite anticoagulation in 68.3%.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".