Atrial fibrillation symptom clusters and associated clinical characteristics and outcomes: A cross-sectional secondary data analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Symptom clusters among adults with atrial fibrillation have previously been identified but no study has examined the relationship between symptom clusters and outcomes. AIMS: The purpose of this study was to identify atrial fibrillation-specific symptom clusters, characterize individuals with each cluster, and determine whether symptom cluster membership is associated with healthcare utilization. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional secondary data analysis of 1501 adults from the Vanderbilt Atrial Fibrillation Registry with verified atrial fibrillation. Self-reported symptoms were measured with the University of Toronto Atrial Fibrillation Severity Scale. We used hierarchical cluster analysis (Ward's method) to identify clusters and dendrograms, pseudo F, and pseudo T-squared to determine the ideal number of clusters. Next, we used regression analysis to examine the association between cluster membership and healthcare utilization. RESULTS: Males predominated (67%) and the average age was 58.4 years. Two symptom clusters were identified, a Weary cluster (3.7%, n=56, fatigue at rest, shortness of breath at rest, chest pain, and dizziness) and an Exertional cluster (32.7%, n=491, shortness of breath with activity and exercise intolerance). Several sociodemographic and clinical characteristics varied by symptom cluster group membership, including age, gender, atrial fibrillation type, body mass index, comorbidity status, and treatment strategy. Women were more likely to experience either cluster ( p<0.001). The Weary cluster was associated with nearly triple the rate of emergency department utilization (incident rate ratio [IRR] 2.8, p<0.001) and twice the rate of hospitalizations (IRR 1.9, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: We identified two symptom clusters. The Weary cluster was associated with a significantly increased rate of healthcare utilization.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".