MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2889139058 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy564.p975

P975Incidence and risk factors for all-cause hospitalizations in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2018· review· en· W2889139058 on OpenAlexaff
Pascal Meyre, Steffen Blum, Sebastian Berger, Stefanie Aeschbacher, Hadrien Schoepfer, Matthias Briel, Alexander Niessner, Stefan Osswald, David Conen

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationMeta-analysisIntensive care medicineMEDLINESystematic reviewInternal medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and associated co-morbidities consume substantial health care resources. The incidence of all-cause hospital admissions in this large patient population, however, is poorly characterized. We therefore performed a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the incidence of all-cause hospitalizations in patients with AF. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library up to June, 2017, to identify all studies that provided information on the incidence of all-cause hospitalizations in AF patients. Studies that reported cause-specific admissions only were excluded. Pooled incidence rates were calculated using DerSimonian-Liard random-effects models. Meta-regression models were constructed to identify characteristics of AF patients associated with all-cause hospitalizations. Results: We identified 44 studies which reported all-cause hospitalizations from 285,837 AF patients with a cumulative follow up time of 376'584 person-years (py). The cumulative incidence of all-cause hospitalization was 40 (95% confidence interval [CI], 35–45) per 100 py (Figure). In 25 reported studies, incidence of cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization was 24 (95% CI, 20–28) per 100 py and 15 (95% CI, 12–18) per 100 py for non-cardiovascular (non-CV) hospitalization, respectively. The incidence estimates were highly heterogeneous (I2=99.9%) and ranged from 8 to 88 per 100 py. Patient characteristics associated with an increased rate of CV hospitalizations were a higher prevalence of heart failure (β=0.27; 95% CI, 0.06–0.49, p=0.015) and chronic pulmonary disease (β=1.23; 95% CI, 0.04–2.43, p=0.04). Associated characteristics for higher rates of non-CV hospitalizations were longer follow up time (β=3.2; 95% CI, 0.36–6, p=0.03), peripheral artery disease (β=0.7; 95% CI, 0.21–1.21, p=0.01), presence of malignancies (β=0.7; 95% CI, 0.6–0.77, p=0.001), and chronic pulmonary disease (β=0.9; 95% CI, 0.4–1.4, p=0.002). Conclusions: The average incidence of hospitalizations among patients with AF is high, which constitute a huge burden for health care systems. Prominent co-morbidities at least partly explained the detected heterogeneity. More detailed information on underlying causes and mechanisms are urgently needed.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.033
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.509
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.049 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→