MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889681397 · doi:10.4414/smw.2018.14652

Prevalence and predictors of atrial fibrillation type among individuals with recent onset of atrial fibrillation

2018· article· en· W2889681397 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSwiss Medical Weekly · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationInternal medicineCardiologyOdds ratioConfidence intervalCohortProspective cohort studyPopulationCohort studyLogistic regression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is considered to be a progressive disease, starting with intermittent episodes that progress over time to more sustained events. However, little is known about the prevalence of and predictors for AF type among patients with recent-onset AF. We aimed to address these issues among a selected population of patients with AF. METHODS: The Basel atrial fibrillation cohort (BEAT-AF) study is an ongoing prospective multicentre cohort study among patients with AF. At baseline, we obtained information on the date of AF diagnosis, AF type, comorbidities, medication and lifestyle factors. For this analysis, 486 (31.4%) out of 1550 participants with recent-onset AF (defined as AF duration <24 months) were included. Predictors for AF type (non-paroxysmal vs paroxysmal) were obtained using multivariable adjusted logistic regression models. RESULTS: Mean age was 67 (59-75) years and 136 (28%) were women. Recent-onset paroxysmal AF was observed in 301 (62%) participants, 185 (38%) had non-paroxysmal AF - persistent AF in 148 (30.4%) and permanent AF in 37 (7.6%). In multivariable models, odds ratios for having non-paroxysmal AF around AF diagnosis were 1.03 per year increasing in age (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.05, p = 0.01); 2.70 (1.5-4.68, p = 0.0004) for history of heart failure; 3.82 (1.05-13.87, p = 0.04) for a history of hyperthyroidism and 1.04 (1.02-1.05, p <0.0001) per beat increase in heart rate. CONCLUSION: We found a substantial proportion of AF patients with the non-paroxysmal form shortly after diagnosis. Predictors for non-paroxysmal AF were increasing age, history of heart failure or hyperthyroidism, and a higher heart rate.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.282 · 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