MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 11875: Risk of Malignant Cancer Among Women With New-onset Atrial Fibrillation

2015· article· en· W2808592250 on OpenAlexaff
David Conen, Jorge Wong, Roopinder K. Sandhu, Nancy R. Cook, I‐Min Lee, Julie E. Buring, Christine M. Albert

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCanadian VIGOUR Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioAtrial fibrillationCancerInternal medicineProportional hazards modelProspective cohort studyConfoundingConfidence intervalRisk factorCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: A substantial proportion of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) die of non-cardiovascular causes, and recent studies suggest a link between AF and cancer. However, this association has not been evaluated in long-term prospective studies. Methods: A total of 34691 women ≥45 years and free of AF, cardiovascular disease and cancer at baseline were prospectively followed for incident AF and malignant cancer within the Women’s Health Study. All incident AF and cancer events were validated by medical record review. Cox proportional-hazards models using time-updated covariates were constructed to assess the relationship of new-onset AF with incident cancer and to adjust for potential confounders. We then assessed the risk of incident AF among women with cancer using a similar modelling approach. Results: Mean age at baseline was 55±7 years. During 19.1 years of follow-up, we observed 1467 (4.2%) AF and 5130 (14.8%) cancer events. AF was a significant risk factor for incident cancer in age-adjusted (hazard ratio (HR) 1.58, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.34, 1.87, p<0.0001) and multivariable adjusted (HR 1.49, 95% CI, 1.26, 1.77, p<0.0001) models, and was increased among women with paroxysmal (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.09, 1.67, p=0.005) and non-paroxysmal AF (HR 1.61, 95% CI 1.23, 2.09, p=0.0004). The risk of cancer was highest in the first 3 months after new-onset AF (HR 3.53, 95% CI 2.05, 6.08, p<0.0001) but remained significant beyond 1 year (adjusted HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.19, 1.73, p=0.0001). New-onset AF was also associated with an increased risk of cancer mortality (adjusted HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.01, 1.85, p=0.04). In contrast, women with new-onset cancer had an increased risk of incident AF within 3 months (HR 4.61, 95% CI 2.81, 7.54, p<0.0001) but not beyond 1 year (HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97, 1.41, p=0.11). Conclusions: In this large cohort of initially healthy women, new-onset AF was a significant risk factor for the short and long term diagnosis of incident cancer. In contrast, cancer was not associated with an increased AF risk over the long term. Our results may suggest that AF could be an early sign of occult cancer or an underlying systemic process conferring an increased cancer risk.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→