MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2982011880 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz747.0133

483Blood pressure and white matter lesions in patients with atrial fibrillation

2019· article· en· W2982011880 on OpenAlexaff
Stefanie Aeschbacher, Steffen Blum, Christine Meyer‐Zürn, Annina S. Vischer, Pascal Meyre, Nicolas Rodondi, Jürg H. Beer, Giorgio Moschovitis, Elisavet Moutzouri, CS Sticherling, Jens Würfel, Leo H. Bonati, S Osswald, David Conen, Michael Kühne

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHyperintensityAtrial fibrillationInternal medicineCardiologySupine positionBlood pressureCohortRisk factorDiastoleMagnetic resonance imagingRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Hypertension (HTN) is one of the most common cardiovascular risk factors in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). As a potential risk factor for cerebral white matter lesions (WML), HTN might explain the increased risk of cognitive dysfunction in AF patients. Methods In a multicenter cohort study of patients with documented AF in Switzerland, systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP) was measured up to three times in a supine position and the mean was calculated. HTN was defined as controlled, when SBP was <140 and DBP <90 mmHg with treatment, and uncontrolled when SBP was ≥140 or DBP ≥90 mmHg with treatment. All patients underwent brain magnetic resonance imaging. Volumes of WML were assessed and graded using the Fazekas scale. A Fazekas score of ≥2 was defined as moderate or severe WML. Multivariable adjusted regression models were used to assess the association between BP and WML. Results Overall, 1738 patients were enrolled in this cross-sectional analysis (mean age 73 years, 73% males). Mean BP was 135/79 mmHg, 69% had a history of HTN. Any WMLs were found in 99% of the patients and 54% had at least moderate WMLs. The prevalence of Fazekas ≥2 was 47%, 50% and 61% among AF patients with SBP <120, 120–140 and ≥140mmHg (p<0.001), respectively. Volumes of WMLs significantly increased across the same SBP categories (2943, 3512 and 4988 mm3, p<0.001). Among patients with normotension, controlled and uncontrolled HTN, moderate or severe WMLs were present in 173 (42.5%), 345 (55%) and 307 (61%), respectively. SBP was associated with Fazekas ≥2 and WML volume after multivariable adjustment (Table). Compared to normotension, both controlled and uncontrolled HTN were significantly associated with higher WML volume (Table). Association between blood pressure and white matter lesions Blood pressure Fazekas ≥2 OR (95% CI) Volume WML β-coefficient (95% CI) <120 mmHg Ref Ref 120–140 mmHg 1.17 (0.88; 1.55) 0.14 (−0.01; 0.30) ≥140 mmHg 1.49 (1.11; 2.00) 0.28 (0.12; 0.43) Continuous, per SD 1.20 (1.09; 1.36), p<0.001 0.12 (0.06; 0.18), p<0.001 Normotension Ref Ref Treated hypertension 1.26 (0.94; 1.68), p=0.12 0.22 (0.07; 0.38), p=0.005 Treated, uncontrolled hypertension 1.52 (1.13; 2.05), p=0.005 0.38 (0.21; 0.54), p<0.001 Regression analyses were adjusted for age, sex, BMI, smoking status, stroke, diabetes, coronary heart disease, AF type, and antihypertensive treatment. One standard Deviation (SD) of SBP = 18 mmHg. Volume of WML was log-transformed. Conclusion Moderate or severe cerebral WMLs are highly prevalent in AF patients and strongly associated with SBP. Our data suggests that optimal treatment of HTN might play an essential role in preventing WMLs. Acknowledgement/Funding Swiss National Science Foundation

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.215 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases→French-language works237,207→